Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Taurus Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd T/A Taurus Commercial Interiors

[2022] FWC 2476

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

Taurus Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd T/A Taurus Commercial Interiors

(B2022/1386)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Taurus Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd T/A Taurus Commercial Interiors.

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 Taurus Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd T/A Taurus Commercial Interiors (Respondent).

On 15 September 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR745892.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Taurus Commercial Interiors Pty Ltd T/A Taurus Commercial Interiors (the Respondent). The application pertains to a proposed ballot of employees to authorise protected action. The Fair Work Commission, under Deputy President Clancy, was tasked with determining the matter. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the decision being made based on the available documentation without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the conditions stipulated in section 437 of the Act for granting a protected action ballot order were satisfied. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent and if the necessary notification period under section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant's declaration by Mr. Darren Connelly, which detailed the bargaining efforts and the genuine attempt to reach an agreement, was central to this determination.

The Commission found that the Applicant had indeed taken the necessary steps to bargain with the Respondent and had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Furthermore, it was determined that the notification period as required by section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Based on these findings, the Deputy President was satisfied that the conditions for granting the ballot order were met. Consequently, an order was issued in PR745892 to allow the proposed ballot to proceed.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order, allowing the employees to vote on the proposed action. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated the Applicant's genuine efforts in bargaining and compliance with the notification period as required by the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established