DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Mills Glass Pty Ltd
(B2017/112)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mills Glass Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mills Glass Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 31 January 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms J Maloney of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR589845.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mills Glass Pty Ltd, a company operating in the glass manufacturing industry, faced a dispute with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which represented the employees of the company. The union proposed to conduct a protected action ballot to seek industrial action in response to certain employment issues. Mills Glass sought an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot, arguing that the ballot was not lawful and would cause significant harm to the company's operations. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the proposed ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements for a protected action ballot, and if the harm alleged by Mills Glass was sufficient to warrant an injunction. The court had to determine if the ballot notice provided by the union to Mills Glass contained the necessary information, if the ballot was genuinely related to industrial action, and if Mills Glass had demonstrated a significant risk of harm if the ballot proceeded.

The court found that the union's ballot notice did not include all the required information, and thus, the ballot was not lawful. Consequently, the court granted an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot. The court emphasised the importance of unions complying with the legal requirements for a protected action ballot to ensure the protection of both the employees and the employer. Mills Glass was successful in obtaining the injunction, and the union's proposed ballot was halted.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Mills Glass Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established