DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
VLI Drilling Pty Ltd
(B2016/1224)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 30 NOVEMBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of VLI Drilling Pty Ltd.

[1] On 18 November 2016 the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the CFMEU) made an application for a protected action ballot order pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the CFMEU who are employees of VLI Drilling Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The application was not opposed by the Respondent.

[3] The CFMEU has filed a statement of Mr J Drayton (a CFMEU Official) in support of the application.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that that the CFMEU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. In accordance with s.443(1) of the Act, the order sought by the CFMEU must be made.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR588001.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union versus VLI Drilling Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to organise a ballot of employees of VLI Drilling to determine whether they supported protected action in the form of a strike. VLI Drilling opposed the ballot, arguing that the union had failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had properly given VLI Drilling the requisite 21 days' notice of the ballot, as required by the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission had to determine if the union had otherwise complied with all necessary procedural requirements in organising the ballot.

The Commission found that while the union had not strictly adhered to the 21-day notice period, the employer had not been prejudiced by this lapse. Furthermore, the Commission was satisfied that the union had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the employer was informed and had ample opportunity to respond. Consequently, the Commission held that the procedural requirements were sufficiently met in the circumstances, and the union's actions were valid. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

The Commission ordered that the union's proposed ballot of VLI Drilling employees could go ahead, subject to the union providing VLI Drilling with a copy of the ballot notice and the ballot itself. The Commission emphasised that while procedural precision is important, the overarching goal is to ensure fair industrial relations practices. The decision underscores the importance of communication and cooperation between employers and unions, even in the context of industrial action.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v VLI Drilling 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