DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
SOLOS Glass (Geelong) Pty Ltd
(B2021/670)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of SOLOS Glass (Geelong) 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of SOLOS Glass (Geelong) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] The matter was listed for mention before me at 5:15pm on 13 August 2021 where I was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr Darren Connelly 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 PR732846.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and Solos Glass (Geelong) Pty Ltd, where the union sought to organise a ballot of the company’s employees to gauge their support for protected industrial action. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The union argued that the proposed ballot was a lawful step under the Fair Work Act 2009, while Solos Glass contested the legality and appropriateness of the ballot, claiming it would disrupt the business operations.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the union's proposed ballot met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it was a reasonable step in the circumstances. The court also needed to determine if the ballot would cause unnecessary harm to the employer’s business and if the union had provided sufficient information to the employees to enable an informed decision.

The Federal Court examined the union's application in detail, assessing the procedural fairness and the content of the ballot papers. The court held that the union's proposed ballot was a reasonable step under the Act, as it did not impose an undue burden on the employer's business and the ballot papers provided adequate information for employees to make an informed decision. Consequently, the court granted the union's application, allowing the ballot to proceed. This decision reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and the need for sufficient employee information in protected action ballots.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Solos Glass (Geelong) 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