DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
Pacific Formwork Pty Limited
(B2016/82)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

SYDNEY, 5 MAY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pacific Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[1] On 4 May 2016, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of Pacific Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by Pacific Formwork/CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2012-2016 (Agreement). The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 March 2016.

[5] On 5 May 2016, the Employer confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [580040] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union versus Pacific Formwork Pty Limited involved a dispute concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Pacific Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving this matter. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot to allow its members to vote on whether to take industrial action. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient information to justify the proposed action and that it had failed to comply with certain procedural requirements.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the union had provided adequate information to justify the proposed protected action ballot. The Commission needed to determine if the union had met the necessary threshold for justifying protected action, as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Regulations 2009, specifically regarding the provision of information to the employer before conducting the ballot.

The Commission found that the union had provided sufficient information to justify the proposed protected action ballot. It determined that the union had met the necessary threshold under the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the Commission held that the union had adequately complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Regulations. Consequently, the Commission authorised the union to conduct the ballot as proposed. The company's opposition was unsuccessful, and the union was permitted to proceed with the ballot.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Pacific Formwork Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established