Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v RND Crewing Pty Ltd

[2021] FWC 6416

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
RND Crewing Pty Ltd
(B2021/1113)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RND Crewing Pty Ltd

[1] 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 RND Crewing Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 18 November 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 statutory declaration of George Gakis of the Applicant declared on 11 November 2021, 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 PR736058.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the case were the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and RND Crewing Pty Ltd. The dispute was about the validity of a proposed protected action ballot of employees of RND Crewing Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the proposed protected action ballot was valid, and whether the employer had breached any industrial laws in its response to the ballot. The employer argued that the ballot was invalid because it did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer also argued that the union had breached the protected action provisions of the Fair Work Act by failing to provide the employer with a copy of the ballot paper.

The Fair Work Commission held that the ballot was valid and that the employer had breached the protected action provisions of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the ballot complied with the requirements of the Act, and that the union had not breached any provisions of the Act by failing to provide the employer with a copy of the ballot paper. The Commission found that the employer had breached the protected action provisions of the Act by attempting to prevent the employees from participating in the ballot. The Commission held that the employer's actions were unreasonable and that the employer had engaged in unlawful conduct. The Fair Work Commission ordered the employer to take all necessary steps to prevent any further interference with the employees' right to participate in the ballot, and to take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established