DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Asaleo Care Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/164)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 JANUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Asaleo Care Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Asaleo Care Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 15 January 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[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 A Millar of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR576187.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President M. P. Richardson, was tasked with determining whether a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Asaleo Care Australia Pty Ltd was in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose when the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought to conduct a ballot among Asaleo's employees to ascertain their support for protected action, including a potential strike. Asaleo opposed the ballot, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient information to justify the proposed action. The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the union's ballot notice and whether it met the statutory requirements for providing information to employees, particularly in relation to the potential for industrial action.

The Commission examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the sufficiency of the union's ballot notice. It found that the notice contained the necessary information about the proposed action and its potential effects, including the nature of the action, the period during which it might occur, and the potential impact on Asaleo's operations. The Commission also considered the principles established in previous cases, such as Re ANZ Banking Group Limited, which emphasised the need for a ballot notice to be clear and comprehensive, allowing employees to make an informed decision. The Commission concluded that the union's ballot notice was sufficient, as it provided the employees with all the necessary information to make an informed choice regarding their support for the proposed action.

Consequently, the Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the proposed protected action ballot, finding that the union had adequately informed the employees about the potential strike and its consequences. The decision was based on the premise that the notice met the statutory requirements and provided employees with the necessary information to make an informed decision. The Commission's ruling allowed the ballot to proceed, ensuring that employees could express their views on the proposed industrial action. This decision reinforces the importance of providing clear and comprehensive information in ballot notices to facilitate informed decision-making by employees.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Asaleo Care Australia 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