Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Thiess Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 307

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Thiess Pty Ltd

(B2023/78)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 6 FEBRUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thiess Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Northern Mining & NSW Energy District (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 Thiess Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 2 February 2023, 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 Michael Taggart of the Applicant declared on 2 February 2023, 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 PR750248.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union Northern Mining & NSW Energy District (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order permitting a protected action ballot among certain employees of Thiess Pty Ltd (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) in relation to the proposed ballot. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter proceeded on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue for the Vice President to determine was whether the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been satisfied. Specifically, the Vice President needed to assess whether there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the Applicant had genuinely been trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. These determinations were based on the material provided, including the statutory declaration of Michael Taggart of the Applicant.

In making the decision, the Vice President noted that the statutory declaration of Michael Taggart set out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach agreement. Given these submissions and the lack of opposition from the Respondent, the Vice President was satisfied that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the Vice President decided to grant the application for a protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order separately in PR750248, granting the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Thiess Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established