Mining and Energy Union v Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 1809

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Mining and Energy Union
v

Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd

(B2024/865)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE

BRISBANE, 10 JULY 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd

On 8 July 2024, Mining and Energy Union (MEU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd (Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd). Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd raised contentions with the protected action ballot order.

On 9 July 2024, the Commission was advised by Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd that there were no longer contentions with the protection action ballot order subject to a few amendments. The MEU provided an amended protected ballot action order to Chambers.

In light of the above circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers.

I am satisfied with the declaration of Mr Mitch Hughes, MEU District President demonstrates the steps taken by the MEU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement. I am satisfied with the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS). CiVS has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s 468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.^[1] For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) and s.448A(2) of the Act, a ballot period of ten (10) working days from the date of the Order (24 July 2024) has been set.

An Order has been separately issued in PR776872.

I will conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference and issue the Order requiring attendance for conference.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS [2023] FWC 1400

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a matter brought by the Mining and Energy Union (MEU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd. Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd initially raised objections to the ballot order, but subsequently withdrew its contentions, subject to some amendments. The Deputy President, Lake, determined the matter on the papers provided. The MEU submitted a declaration by Mr Mitch Hughes, the MEU District President, which demonstrated the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the employer and that it had been genuinely trying to negotiate. The Deputy President was satisfied that all notification requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met and that the ballot would be conducted by the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS), an approved agent under section 468A of the Act.

The legal issues in this matter were whether the MEU had fulfilled the requirements of section 437 of the Act to conduct a protected action ballot and whether the notification period and other procedural requirements had been properly observed. The Deputy President assessed the MEU's declaration and determined that the union had taken appropriate steps in bargaining and that the notification period was adequate. The Deputy President also noted that CiVS was authorised to conduct the ballot, thus satisfying the procedural prerequisites.

In conclusion, the Deputy President issued the protected action ballot order with a ballot period of ten working days from 24 July 2024. The Deputy President also ordered a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act. The orders were issued to ensure that the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot were met and to facilitate any necessary conciliation efforts.

Mining and Energy Union v Batchfire Callide Management Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established