DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Brisbane Racing Club Limited
(B2016/263)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

DARWIN, 5 FEBRUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Brisbane Racing Club Limited.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. (the CFMEU) The CFMEU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Brisbane Racing Club Limited in Queensland (the Employer).

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of ss.443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR576763, based on the draft provided by the CFMEU, will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFME) sought approval for a proposed ballot of employees of the Brisbane Racing Club Limited (BRCL) to engage in protected action. The dispute centred around the validity and scope of the proposed industrial action, which was intended to address ongoing industrial issues between the union and the employer. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the ballot complied with the relevant legislative provisions and whether it was reasonably likely to achieve the union's objectives.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was consistent with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to consider whether the ballot notice complied with the statutory provisions governing protected action and whether the proposed action was reasonably likely to achieve the union's objectives. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Act.

The Commission held that the proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements. It found that the ballot notice was misleading and did not accurately reflect the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action. The Commission determined that the proposed action was not reasonably likely to achieve the union's objectives and was, therefore, not protected action. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval of the ballot.

The Commission's decision was based on the conclusion that the ballot notice was misleading and did not provide the necessary information to the employees to make an informed decision. The Commission found that the proposed industrial action was not narrowly tailored to achieve the union's objectives and could have broader implications for the employer and other stakeholders. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application and did not grant approval for the proposed ballot.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Brisbane Racing Club Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established