DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock
(B2017/196)

COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

MELBOURNE, 9 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock.

[1] This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock (Respondent).

[2] The CFMEU filed a statutory declaration of Dean Dando addressing the statutory grounds. The statutory declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately twelve occasions since July 2016 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 7 March 2017 my chambers contacted the Respondent by email to determine whether they object to the CFMEU’s application. On 8 March 2017 the Respondent advised that they did not oppose the CFMEU’s application.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order PR 590886 is based on draft order provided by the CFMEU and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in question involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and CSR Limited, trading as CSR Gyprock. The dispute revolved around a proposed industrial action ballot conducted by the union. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal that heard and decided the case.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address were primarily whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary statutory requirements and whether the ballot was conducted in a fair and lawful manner. The union argued that the ballot was procedurally sound and within the bounds of the Fair Work Act, while CSR Limited contested that there were procedural flaws and that the union had not provided sufficient information to the employees to ensure an informed decision.

The Commission, in its reasoning, found that the union's ballot process had indeed complied with the statutory obligations set out in the Fair Work Act. It was determined that the union had provided all necessary information to the employees, ensuring that they were fully informed about the proposed industrial action. The Commission also noted that the ballot process was conducted in a manner that was fair and did not mislead or cause confusion among the employees. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of the union and found that the proposed ballot was valid and lawful.

The Fair Work Commission's decision was that the union's proposed industrial action ballot was procedurally correct and in compliance with the relevant statutory requirements. The Commission did not find any procedural flaws in the union's actions and upheld the validity of the ballot.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v CSR Limited T/A CSR Gyprock

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established