Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 3188

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd

(B2022/1782)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 2 DECEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue 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 MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 December 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 Andrew Smith of the Applicant declared on 30 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 PR748530.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union versus MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The union, acting as the applicant, sought a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd, the respondent. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was determined by the Commission without the need for a hearing, as the respondent had indicated that it did not oppose the application.

The primary legal issues in this case involved whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were met. The Commission had to examine the union's efforts in bargaining with the employer, as evidenced by the statutory declaration provided by Andrew Smith of the union. This declaration outlined the steps taken by the union in its negotiations with the employer, and the Commission had to determine if these steps were sufficient to meet the legal criteria for a protected action ballot.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the material before it, including the statutory declaration from the union. The Vice President, Catanzariti, concluded that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and that all necessary requirements of the Act had been fulfilled. As such, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal framework provided by the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order under PR748530, granting the union's application for a protected action ballot. This decision allows the union to proceed with the ballot, enabling the employees to take protected industrial action if the ballot is successful. The order reflects the Commission's determination that the union had met all legal requirements and that the application was justified.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v MSS Strategic Medical and Rescue Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established