Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster Summary

[2022] FWC 271

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster

(B2022/64)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 10 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster.

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 Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster (Respondent).

On 10 February 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 Ms Jennifer Kruschel 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 PR738236.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster (the Respondent). This application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant sought to ballot its members regarding potential protected actions due to an ongoing dispute with the Respondent over certain terms and conditions of employment. The Respondent did not object to the application, which led the Deputy President to determine the matter without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the Court centred on whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. Specifically, the Court needed to assess whether the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent and whether the requisite notification period had elapsed. The declaration provided by Ms. Jennifer Kruschel of the Applicant outlined the bargaining process and the union's efforts to reach an agreement, which formed the basis of the Court's assessment.

Upon reviewing the provided materials, including the declaration of Ms. Kruschel, the Deputy President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had indeed passed and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. Given that the Respondent did not object to the application and the Applicant had demonstrated genuine efforts to reach an agreement, the Deputy President determined the application favorably. An order was issued to allow the protected action ballot to proceed.

The Court's decision confirmed the issuance of an order for the protected action ballot, as detailed in PR738236. This ruling allowed the union to proceed with the ballot, thereby providing its members the opportunity to take protected industrial action if negotiations with the Respondent did not yield a satisfactory resolution.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd T/A Tuftmaster

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established