Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Interface Australia Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 1327

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Interface Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/516)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Interface Australia Pty Ltd

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 Interface Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected to 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 Anna Dinh of the Applicant declared on 31 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 PR762811.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Interface Australia Pty Ltd. The application was made due to the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the employer, which had neither consented nor objected to the application. The union's application was to be determined on the papers, without a hearing, based on the material presented, including a statutory declaration from Anna Dinh of the CFMMEU confirming the union's genuine attempts at bargaining with Interface Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the notification period for the proposed agreement was met and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were satisfied. The court had to assess the union's steps taken in bargaining with Interface Australia and determine whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer. The court also had to determine whether the statutory declaration provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the Act.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the union had taken the necessary steps to reach an agreement with Interface Australia and had genuinely tried to do so. The court was satisfied that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been satisfied. Consequently, the court decided to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot order.

The court issued an Order in PR762811, granting the CFMMEU's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to the employees of Interface Australia Pty Ltd. The union's application was determined on the papers, without a hearing, and the court found that the union had met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established