Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v CQMS Castings Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 4466

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
CQMS Castings Pty Ltd
(B2014/141)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 4 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of CQMS Castings Pty Ltd in Maryborough.

[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” known as the CFMEU. The CFMEU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CQMS Casting Ltd in Maryborough.

[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 made met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR552761, based on the draft provided by the “Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union” will be issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and CQMS Castings Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the proposed industrial action, specifically a ballot for protected action, by employees of CQMS Castings Pty Ltd in Maryborough. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's national workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the union had provided the employer with adequate notice of the proposed industrial action, whether the ballot was for protected action as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the employer had unreasonably refused to allow the union to conduct the ballot on the employer's premises. The court had to determine the validity of the union's actions and the employer's response in light of the statutory requirements and obligations.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union had not provided the employer with sufficient notice of the proposed industrial action, which was a requirement under the Fair Work Act. The commission held that the employer had not unreasonably refused to allow the union to conduct the ballot on the premises. Consequently, the commission ruled that the union's proposed ballot for protected action was not valid due to the lack of proper notice. The commission also noted that the employer had the right to request further information and clarification regarding the proposed action.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot for protected action be cancelled. The union was directed to provide the employer with adequate notice of any future industrial action, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements. The employer was also required to cooperate with the union to facilitate any lawful industrial action, provided that the union complied with the notice provisions of the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established