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

[2013] FWC 2110

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Madad Pty Ltd T/A Sealy of Australia
(B2013/76)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 8 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Madad Pty Ltd (trading as Sealy of Australia).

[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, PR535471, based on the draft provided by the CFMEU will be issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, seeking authorisation for protected action by employees of Madad Pty Ltd (trading as Sealy of Australia). The union aimed to conduct a ballot of its members, who were employees of the respondent, to determine their support for protected action, including strike action, in response to an enterprise agreement dispute. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot met the statutory requirements for protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The Commission examined whether the proposed ballot notice complied with the notice provisions in the Act, specifically whether it contained the requisite information, including details about the protected action and its purpose. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the proposed action was genuinely in pursuit of a workplace matter as defined by the Act. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for protected action due to ongoing disputes over the enterprise agreement. The respondent contended that the ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements and was not genuinely in pursuit of a workplace matter.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot notice did not adequately inform employees about the specific nature of the proposed protected action or the reasons for the ballot. The Commission also concluded that the proposed action was not genuinely in pursuit of a workplace matter. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application for authorisation of the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of compliance with statutory notice requirements and the need for protected action to be genuinely related to a workplace matter. The union's application for authorisation of the ballot was dismissed, and no protected action was authorised.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established