Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Viridian Glass Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1458

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Viridian Glass Pty Ltd

(B2022/540)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 9 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Viridian Glass Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (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 Viridian Glass Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Rita Mallia of the Applicant declared on 7 June 2022, 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 PR742503.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union versus Viridian Glass Pty Ltd, the applicant union sought a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of the respondent company. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the respondent neither consented nor objected to the application. The matter was determined on the papers without a hearing, and the Vice President was satisfied, based on the material presented, that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the respondent company.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the respondent company and if the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. Additionally, the court had to determine if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were fulfilled. The court examined the statutory declaration provided by the union, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent company and their genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The court found that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent company, and the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. Furthermore, the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were also satisfied. As a result, the Vice President determined that the application for a protected action ballot order should be granted.

An Order was separately issued in PR742503, granting the application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established