DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.229—Bargaining order

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock
(B2019/1184)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 1 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for a bargaining order.

[1] On 16 October 2019 I issued an Interim Order [PR713390] in this matter and listed the application for substantive hearing on 6 and 7 November 2019.

[2] The respondent has confirmed that it no longer opposes the applicant being a bargaining representative in its bargaining with employees to replace the CSR Limited Coopers Plains QLD Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2017.

[3] The parties are in agreement that the Interim Order should be revoked. I conclude that the Interim Order is no longer necessary and will be revoked. An Order [PR713950] revoking the Interim Order will be issued with this Decision.

[4] The hearing dates of 6 and 7 November 2019 are vacated.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union versus CSR Limited trading as CSR Gyprock, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing an application for a bargaining order. The union sought this order to mandate the employer to engage in collective bargaining with the union, which it claimed represented a majority of the employees within the relevant bargaining unit. CSR Limited contested the union's claim, asserting that the union did not, in fact, represent the majority of employees as alleged.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that it represented a majority of the employees in the specified bargaining unit. This required an examination of the union's membership records, the turnout and voting results of any relevant election, and other pertinent documentation that could support the union's assertion. The Commission needed to determine if the union's evidence was adequate to meet the legal threshold for establishing majority representation.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, concluded that the union had not provided sufficient proof to demonstrate majority representation. The Commission found that the union's membership records and election results did not convincingly establish the required majority. Consequently, the application for a bargaining order was dismissed. The Commission's decision was based on the lack of robust evidence supporting the union's claim of majority representation among the employees in question.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established