DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited
(B2016/798)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 19 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (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 Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 18 July 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 Vendramini 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 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR582940.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The dispute involved the proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited, a company operating in the wood products industry. The union sought to conduct a ballot to determine if the employees wished to engage in protected action, which the company opposed on the grounds that the ballot was not sufficiently specific.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice provided by the union was sufficiently precise to comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the company argued that the ballot notice was too vague, as it did not detail the exact nature of the proposed action or the specific demands of the employees. The union contended that the notice was adequate as it provided sufficient information to enable employees to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot.

In its decision, the Commission found that the ballot notice was indeed too vague. The Commission held that a ballot notice must contain sufficient detail to inform employees about the nature of the proposed action and the specific demands being sought. The Commission emphasised that vagueness in a ballot notice could lead to confusion and uncertainty among employees, thereby undermining the fairness and effectiveness of the ballot process. As a result, the Commission ruled that the ballot notice did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and therefore could not be lawfully conducted.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be disallowed. This decision highlights the importance of precision in the wording of ballot notices to ensure that employees are fully informed about the proposed action and its implications.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established