DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Laminex Group Pty Limited
(B2020/735)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Laminex Group Pty Limited.

[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 Laminex Group Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 20 November 2020, 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 S Abboushi 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 PR724749.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, representing the employees of Laminex Group Pty Limited, and Laminex Group Pty Limited, an employer in the industry. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of employees to engage in protected action, which is a form of industrial action protected under Australian labour law. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is the primary industrial relations tribunal in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot by the union complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the ballot notice provided by the union to Laminex was valid, as required by section 361 of the Act. The union argued that the ballot notice was valid and should proceed, while Laminex contended that the notice was flawed and should be disallowed.

The court examined the specific requirements of section 361 of the Act and found that the ballot notice provided by the union contained significant inaccuracies. The notice failed to accurately describe the proposed industrial action, and the union had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. Consequently, the court determined that the ballot notice was invalid, and the proposed ballot could not proceed as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court's decision was based on the need to ensure that any industrial action taken by employees is conducted in a manner that is transparent and respects the rights of all parties involved.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot of employees of Laminex Group Pty Limited could not proceed due to the invalid ballot notice provided by the union. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accuracy and transparency in the process of conducting protected industrial action. This case serves as a reminder to unions and employers of the need to comply with the legal requirements when engaging in industrial action, ensuring that all parties are aware of the actions being proposed and the potential consequences.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Laminex Group Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established