DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Stegbar Pty. Limited
(B2018/719)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 16 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Stegbar Pty. Limited.

[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 Stegbar Pty. Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 16 August 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B Ross 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 PR610020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union versus Stegbar Pty. Limited, the dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to conduct a ballot among the employees of Stegbar Pty. Limited to gauge their support for protected industrial action. Stegbar Pty. Limited opposed this ballot, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient particulars regarding the proposed action. The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the information provided by the union to the employees and whether the union had met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a lawful ballot. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union's ballot notice adequately outlined the proposed protected action, thus enabling the employees to make an informed decision.

The Fair Work Commission examined the union's ballot notice to assess whether it contained sufficient details to inform employees about the nature of the proposed action. The union argued that the notice was sufficient as it included general descriptions of the proposed action, while Stegbar Pty. Limited contended that the details were vague and insufficient for the employees to make an informed decision. The Commission considered the statutory requirements and relevant case law, ultimately concluding that the union's notice did not provide the employees with enough information to understand the specifics of the proposed action. As a result, the Commission found that the ballot could not proceed as the notice did not meet the necessary standards.

Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Stegbar Pty. Limited, stating that the union's ballot notice was inadequate. The Commission held that the union had not provided enough detail to satisfy the requirements under the Fair Work Act, thus the proposed ballot could not proceed. The decision was grounded in the need to protect the rights of employees to make informed decisions about their participation in industrial action. The union's appeal was dismissed, and the Commission's decision was upheld. The final orders of the Commission were that the proposed ballot could not proceed as the union's notice was insufficient.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Stegbar Pty. Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established