DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The
v
Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd T/A Australian Synchrotron
(B2015/559)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 29 MAY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (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 Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 29 May 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company 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
Mr Tom Fooks of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR567896.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia brought a claim against Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd T/A Australian Synchrotron concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The Association argued that the employer had failed to meet its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to the ballot process. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness and the adequacy of the employer's response to the proposed industrial action.

The legal issues that the Commission was required to decide included whether the employer had properly notified and consulted with the Association as required under the Fair Work Act and the associated regulations. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if the employer's response to the proposed action was reasonable and whether the ballot process complied with the necessary legal standards.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not adequately notified and consulted with the Association before proceeding with the proposed protected action ballot. The Commission held that the employer's actions fell short of the procedural fairness required by law, leading to an invalid ballot. Furthermore, the employer's response to the proposed action was deemed unreasonable. The Commission concluded that the employer's failure to properly engage with the Association invalidated the ballot process. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to cease the ballot and to engage in further discussions with the Association to address the issues raised.

The final orders included a directive for the employer to refrain from proceeding with the ballot and to enter into good faith negotiations with the Association to resolve the dispute. The Commission also mandated that the employer provide detailed information and documentation to the Association to facilitate the necessary discussions and ensure compliance with the legal requirements going forward.

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Synchrotron Light Source Australia Pty Ltd T/A Australian Synchrotron

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established