DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
(B2015/422)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 9 APRIL 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[1] Consequent upon my reasons given at the conclusion of the proceedings today (and noting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not oppose the application made by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots for a protected action ballot) and having also further revised the draft order, the order [PR562919] now issues.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

J. Lauchland for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

A. Anastasi for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne via videolink;

April, 9.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, representing the employees of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, contested the validity of a proposed protected action ballot. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority sought to conduct a ballot among its employees, who were members of the union, to determine if they wished to engage in protected action, including a strike. The union argued that the proposed ballot was flawed and did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Cth). Specifically, the union contended that the ballot did not adequately inform the employees of the potential consequences of the proposed action, such as the potential for disciplinary action or the impact on public safety. The court had to determine if the ballot met the statutory requirements for a valid protected action ballot.

The court found that the proposed ballot did not provide sufficient information to the employees about the potential consequences of the proposed action. The court emphasised that the employees needed to be fully informed of the potential risks and consequences of engaging in protected action, particularly in a role as critical as that of air traffic controllers. The court held that the ballot was invalid because it did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the union's challenge to the validity of the ballot was upheld.

As a result of the court's decision, the proposed ballot was deemed invalid, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was required to address the deficiencies in the ballot before proceeding with any future protected action ballots. The union's challenge was successful, and the court's decision ensured that employees were provided with the necessary information to make an informed decision about participating in protected action.

Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Civil Aviation Safety Authority

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established