Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 3144

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd

(B2022/1762)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd

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

On 25 November 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of George Gakis of the Applicant declared on 24 November 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR748349.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) against MMA Offshore Vessel Operations Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Applicant sought a protected action ballot order under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in relation to certain employees of the Respondent. The application was made due to a proposed protected action ballot by the employees. The Respondent did not oppose the application and the Vice President decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issue before the court was whether the requirements of s.437 and s.443(1) of the Act were met for the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot. The Applicant argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with them. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the Vice President was satisfied that the requirements of the Act had been met.

The Vice President was satisfied that the statutory declaration of George Gakis of the Applicant, declared on 24 November 2022, set out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Vice President was also satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met. The court decided to issue an Order in PR748349.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. The Vice President was satisfied that the requirements of s.437 and s.443(1) of the Act had been met, and an Order was issued in PR748349. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without holding a hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established