Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Madad Pty Ltd T/A Sealy of Australia

[2013] FWC 3147

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Madad Pty Ltd T/A Sealy of Australia
(B2013/128)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 21 MAY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Madad Pty Ltd.

[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 (CFMEU) The CFMEU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Madad Pty Ltd ( trading as Sealy of Australia).

[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 in ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR537033, based on the draft provided by the CFMEU will issue at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Madad Pty Ltd T/A Sealy of Australia, the dispute arose from a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Madad Pty Ltd. The union, representing the employees, sought to conduct a ballot to determine if the employees would support a protected action. Madad Pty Ltd, however, challenged the union's right to hold the ballot, claiming that it did not have the requisite number of members within the enterprise eligible to vote. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues in the case involved the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly section 391, which governs the right of an industrial organisation to conduct a ballot for protected action. The court had to determine whether the union had complied with the legislative requirements for holding a ballot and whether the enterprise definition in the Act appropriately encompassed all the employees in question.

The Fair Work Commission held that the union had properly complied with the requirements of the Act in organising the ballot. The court found that the definition of "enterprise" in the Act was sufficiently broad to include all employees of Madad Pty Ltd, regardless of their specific employment arrangements. Consequently, the union's right to conduct the ballot was upheld, and Madad Pty Ltd's challenge was dismissed. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees' rights to organise and participate in industrial action are protected under the Act.

Following the decision, the court ordered that the union could proceed with the ballot as planned, ensuring that the employees' voices were heard in the process of determining potential industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established