Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v CSF Proteins Pty Limited

[2014] FWC 7556

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
CSF Proteins Pty Limited
(B2014/1091)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 23 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CSF Proteins Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of CSF Proteins Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 22 October 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The CFMEU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a Statutory Declaration declared by Amanda Swayn, an Official of the CFMEU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the CFMEU.

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 CSF Proteins Pty Limited. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of employees for protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues at hand were whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the ballot was in the best interest of the employees.

The court examined whether the union had provided sufficient information to the employees, allowing them to make an informed decision about participating in the proposed protected action. The union argued that the ballot complied with the requirements of the Act, and that it was in the best interest of the employees. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was not adequately communicated to the employees and did not provide them with the necessary information to make an informed decision.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, as it failed to provide employees with sufficient information about the potential consequences of participating in the protected action. The Commission further held that the ballot was not in the best interest of the employees, as it did not allow them to make an informed decision. Consequently, the Commission disallowed the proposed ballot.

As a result of the court's decision, the proposed ballot of employees of CSF Proteins Pty Limited for protected action was disallowed, and the union was required to provide the employees with the necessary information to make an informed decision about any future protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established