DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Laminex Group Pty Limited
(B2019/1258)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2019

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 (CFMMEU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Laminex Group Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 30 October 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Michael Aird of the CFMMEU declared on 28 October 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR713856.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court was called upon to consider a dispute between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Laminex Group Pty Limited. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees for the purpose of proposing protected action, in line with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Laminex Group Pty Limited opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not appropriately aligned with the statutory requirements and thus invalid. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of the Act, specifically the conditions under which a union can call for a protected action ballot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had correctly followed the legislative procedures for a protected action ballot. This involved examining the notification requirements, the timing of the ballot, and whether the proposed action was genuinely intended to be protected action under the Act. The court needed to determine if the union had provided sufficient information to employees and whether the ballot met the statutory criteria for protected action. Additionally, the court considered the implications of the company’s objections and whether they had a valid basis.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions and the union's actions. The court found that the union had failed to adequately notify employees about the specific details of the proposed action and had not included all the mandatory information as required by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court held that the ballot did not meet the legal standards for protected action. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with the notification requirements to ensure that employees are fully informed and can make an educated decision about participating in the proposed action. The decision underscored the necessity for unions to strictly adhere to the legislative framework when organising ballots for protected action.

The court ordered that the ballot be invalidated and directed the union to rectify the shortcomings in its notification process. The union was instructed to re-conduct the ballot in compliance with the statutory requirements, ensuring that all necessary information was provided to the employees. This decision reinforced the importance of procedural compliance in industrial actions to protect the rights and interests of both employers and employees.

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