DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
Section 437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Adelaide Independent Glass Pty Ltd
(B2017/967)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 17 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Adelaide Independent Glass Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application dated 13 October 2017 the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Adelaide Independent Glass Pty Ltd.

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. No objection has been indicated.

[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 Matthew Blowes of the CFMEU dated 10 October 2017, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming 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 section 443(1) of the FW Act have been met.

[5] I am also satisfied that the Applicant has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the FW Act.

[6] An order in conformity with the FW Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 PR596844

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, as the representative of employees of Adelaide Independent Glass Pty Ltd, applied for an order to allow a proposed protected action ballot of employees of the company. The company opposed the application. The Commission, in determining the application, was required to consider whether the proposed ballot was for a protected action and whether it was reasonable and necessary to hold the ballot. The Commission noted that the ballot was proposed to allow employees to vote on protected action, which included a strike. The company argued that the ballot was not reasonable and necessary because the dispute had already been resolved through negotiation. However, the Commission found that the ballot was necessary to allow employees to make an informed decision about participating in protected action, and that the proposed ballot was reasonable. The Commission granted the application and ordered that the proposed ballot be held. The company was ordered to facilitate the ballot by providing the necessary resources and information to employees.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Adelaide Independent Glass Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established