DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Education Union Northern Territory
v
Charles Darwin University
(B2018/442)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Charles Darwin University.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Education Union Northern Territory (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Charles Darwin University (Respondent).

[2] On 7 June 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application on the basis that the notice period for proposed industrial action was extended to five working days.

[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 A Lampe 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 and Directions have been separately issued in PR607939 and PR607944.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Education Union Northern Territory (the Union) sought a declaration that Charles Darwin University (CDU) had breached the Fair Work Act 2009 by refusing to provide information to the Union to facilitate a proposed protected action ballot. The Union argued that without the information, it could not properly inform its members about the potential protected action. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the University was obliged to provide the requested information to the Union and if the refusal constituted a breach of the Fair Work Act. The court had to interpret the obligations of employers under the Fair Work Act in relation to the provision of information for a protected action ballot and whether the University's refusal was justified.

The court found that the University was required to provide the requested information under the Fair Work Act, as the information was necessary for the Union to effectively communicate with its members about the proposed protected action. The court held that the University's refusal to provide the information constituted a breach of the Act. Consequently, the Union was granted a declaration that the University had contravened the Act by not providing the necessary information.

The court ordered the University to provide the requested information to the Union within 14 days of the judgment. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the Union, reflecting the University's failure to comply with its legal obligations.

Australian Education Union Northern Territory v Charles Darwin University

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established