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
(B2016/981)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 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 9 September 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 PR585285.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union versus Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited. The union sought to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would support industrial action, including a potential strike, against the employer. The employer contested the ballot, arguing that it was not necessary or appropriate, and sought to prevent it from proceeding.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had a right to conduct the ballot and, if so, whether there were any circumstances under which the employer could lawfully prevent it. The Commission needed to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs industrial relations in Australia, including the processes for protected industrial action. Specifically, the Commission had to examine sections relating to the right to conduct a ballot, the criteria for determining the appropriateness of such action, and the role of the employer in the process.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the union, affirming its right to conduct the ballot. The Commission held that the union had satisfied the statutory requirements for conducting a ballot, including providing the employer with the necessary notice and information. The Commission also determined that the employer had not demonstrated that the ballot was inappropriate under the circumstances. The Commission emphasised the importance of protecting the rights of employees to organise and take collective action to improve their working conditions and terms of employment. The employer's arguments, which focused on the potential impact on business operations, were not sufficient to override the statutory rights of the employees.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the union was permitted to proceed with the ballot. The Commission did not impose any restrictions or conditions on the ballot process, leaving it to the parties to manage the logistics and conduct of the ballot in accordance with the law. The employer was not able to prevent the union from conducting the ballot, although it retained the right to engage in further discussions with the union to try to resolve any underlying disputes. The final orders of the Commission confirmed the union's right to conduct the ballot and outlined the procedures that the parties needed to follow to ensure compliance with the law.

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