Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 4798

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd
(B2014/160)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 17 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The CFMEU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd engaged at the Duralie Mine.

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. I have received, and rely upon a witness statement of Mr Jeremy McWilliams, Vice President of the Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District of the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU, providing information about matters relevant to s.443 of the Act.

[3] I have decided to determine this application on the papers without holding a hearing. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, and s.443 in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR553245] based on the draft order provided by the CFMEU will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd. The union had proposed a ballot of its members, who were employees of Leighton Contractors, regarding potential industrial action. The company sought an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot, claiming it would cause irreparable harm to the company's business. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the proposed industrial action and the ballot process were protected under Australian labour law. The union argued that the action was lawful and necessary for bargaining purposes, while Leighton Contractors contended that the ballot would lead to significant disruptions and financial harm. The court had to determine if the union's actions were protected by the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether an injunction was warranted to prevent the ballot.

The court examined the circumstances under which industrial action could be deemed unprotected and the potential consequences of allowing the ballot to proceed. It found that the union's proposed action was protected, as it was part of a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute. The court emphasised the importance of the right to organise and engage in protected industrial action as fundamental to the Australian industrial relations system. Consequently, the injunction was refused, and the union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned.

No additional orders were made beyond the refusal of the injunction, allowing the union to proceed with the proposed ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established