DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd
(B2021/263)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 16 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 16 April 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Grant White 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 has been separately issued in PR728709.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd, an employer in the building industry, sought an injunction from the Fair Work Commission to prevent its employees from participating in a proposed protected action ballot. The dispute arose from the employees' intention to take industrial action in response to alleged unfair dismissals and adverse workplace conditions. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this legal challenge, tasked with resolving the conflict between the employer's rights and the employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed protected action ballot constituted an unlawful industrial action ballot. This required the Commission to determine if the ballot was genuinely intended for the purpose of taking protected industrial action or if it had other ulterior motives. Another key issue was whether the employer's injunction application was justified under the circumstances, considering the potential impact on the employees' rights to organise and participate in protected actions.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was genuinely intended for the purpose of taking protected industrial action. It ruled that the employer's application for an injunction was not warranted as the employees' right to organise and participate in protected actions outweighed the employer's interest in preventing the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employers and employees in industrial disputes and concluded that the employer had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an injunction. Ultimately, the employer's application was dismissed, and the employees were allowed to proceed with the ballot.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Knauf Plasterboard 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