Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 1243

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited

(B2023/492)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty 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 Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 26 May 2023, 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 Robert (Bob) Timbs of the Applicant declared on 25 May 2023, 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 PR762550.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the applicant) for an order that a protected action ballot be held among certain employees of Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited (the respondent). The Commission was advised that the respondent did not oppose the application. The Vice President determined the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The applicant sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant argued that it had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the respondent and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been reached. The respondent did not oppose the application. The Vice President had to determine whether the applicant had met the requirements under the Act for the order to be granted.

The Vice President found that the applicant had met the requirements for the order to be granted. The Vice President found that the applicant had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the respondent and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been reached. The Vice President noted that the respondent did not oppose the application.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application. The Vice President issued an order in PR762550.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established