DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Laminex Group Pty Limited
(B2018/496)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2018

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

[1] By its amended application, by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Applicant) applies 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 27 June 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr A Vendramini 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 PR608524.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a case concerning a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Laminex Group Pty Limited. The employees, represented by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, sought to conduct a ballot to determine if they would support protected industrial action. The dispute centred on the validity and scope of the ballot, as well as the obligations of the employer to facilitate such a process. The legal issues primarily revolved around the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly those concerning protected action and the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot.

The Commission examined whether the union had properly followed the legislative requirements for a protected action ballot, including the necessity of providing the employer with sufficient information to enable the employer to prepare a response. Additionally, the court assessed whether the employer had adequately engaged with the union in the lead-up to the ballot and whether any actions taken by the employer constituted an unfair labour practice. The Commission also considered the nature of the proposed industrial action and whether it fell within the scope of activities protected under the Act.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission determined that the union had substantially complied with the legislative requirements for conducting a ballot. The employer, however, was found to have engaged in conduct that could be considered an unfair labour practice, specifically by not providing adequate information to the union to enable an effective response. The Commission ruled that while the union's ballot was generally lawful, the employer's actions undermined the integrity of the process. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to take specific steps to remedy the situation and ensure compliance with the Act in future dealings with the union.

The final orders included directives for the employer to provide the union with the necessary information to facilitate effective communication and to refrain from any further conduct that could be deemed unfair labour practice. The Commission also mandated that the employer and the union engage in further discussions to address any outstanding issues and to promote a cooperative industrial relations environment.

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