DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd
(B2018/923)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 12 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 11 October 2018 the Commission was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Aaron Mackrell of the Applicant 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.

[5] An Order [PR701284] will now be issued.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court recently addressed a dispute between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the company's employees. The Union sought a declaration that a ballot held by Hanson Construction was invalid and that a new ballot should be conducted. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue revolved around the validity of the ballot conducted by Hanson Construction under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the ballot was flawed due to procedural irregularities, while Hanson Construction maintained that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court was tasked with determining whether the procedural requirements for a valid ballot were satisfied and whether any irregularities rendered the ballot invalid.

In examining the provisions of the Fair Work Act, the court held that the ballot was indeed invalid due to procedural deficiencies. The court found that Hanson Construction had not adhered to the requirements for notifying employees about the proposed industrial action and the purpose of the ballot. Additionally, there were issues with the timing and manner of the ballot, which were deemed to be significant procedural errors. Consequently, the court ruled that the ballot was invalid and ordered that a new ballot be conducted in compliance with the statutory provisions.

The court's decision mandated that Hanson Construction must hold a new ballot that properly follows the requirements of the Fair Work Act. This includes providing adequate notice to employees, ensuring that the ballot accurately reflects the proposed industrial action, and allowing sufficient time for employees to consider the ballot. The Union's application for a declaration of invalidity was thus upheld, and the matter was remitted for the conduct of a new ballot.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established