Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v GrainCorp Operations Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 1781

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

GrainCorp Operations Limited

(B2022/658)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GrainCorp Operations Limited

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of GrainCorp Operations Limited (Respondent).

On 8 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Glen Williams of the Applicant declared on 7 July 2022, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR743592.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The CFMEU sought a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of GrainCorp Operations Limited (GrainCorp). The application was made to facilitate the proposed industrial action by the employees, which required compliance with the notification time stipulated in section 443(1) of the Act. GrainCorp did not oppose the application, leading the Vice President to decide the matter based on the documents submitted, including the statutory declaration by Glen Williams of the CFMEU.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was met, and if the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been satisfied. The CFMEU needed to demonstrate that it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with GrainCorp, and that the notification period had been appropriately observed. The court had to assess the evidence provided to determine if the union's application fulfilled the legislative prerequisites for proceeding with the ballot.

In rendering its decision, the Vice President found that the CFMEU had adequately shown its efforts to negotiate with GrainCorp and that the notification requirements had been complied with. The statutory declaration by Glen Williams detailed the union's bargaining efforts and the adherence to the notification time, thereby satisfying the conditions under section 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Vice President determined that the CFMEU was entitled to proceed with the protected action ballot as requested. The decision was made on the basis of the documents and without a hearing, given GrainCorp's lack of opposition.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v GrainCorp Operations Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established