DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Laminex Group Pty Ltd
(B2021/613)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 3 AUGUST 2021

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

[1] This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, Construction & General Division, Queensland Northern Territory Divisional Branch (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 Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 3 August 2021, 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 declaration of Grant White of the CFMMEU made on 30 July 2021, 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 PR732413.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Laminex Group Pty Ltd, to determine if they supported protected industrial action. The dispute arose from an enterprise agreement between the parties, which had expired. The Laminex Group opposed the ballot on the basis that the union did not have a sufficient interest in the employees’ working conditions to warrant a ballot. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue was whether the union had a sufficient interest in the employees’ working conditions to justify a ballot. The Fair Work Commission considered the nature of the union’s interest in the employees’ working conditions, as well as the circumstances in which the union sought to conduct the ballot. The Commission found that the union had a sufficient interest in the employees’ working conditions because it represented the employees in relation to their employment conditions and had a history of doing so. The Commission also found that the union’s request for a ballot was not an abuse of process, as it was made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose.

The Fair Work Commission granted the union’s application, allowing it to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Laminex Group Pty Ltd. The Commission found that the union had satisfied the requirements of the Fair Work Act, and that the ballot was necessary to determine if the employees supported protected industrial action. The Commission also noted that the Laminex Group had not provided any evidence to suggest that the union’s request for a ballot was improper or unjustified. The Commission’s decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union be permitted to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Laminex Group Pty Ltd to determine if they supported protected industrial action. The Commission also ordered that the Laminex Group pay the union’s costs of the application. The decision of the Commission is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that unions have a sufficient interest in their members’ working conditions before seeking to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action.

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