DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Bureau of Meteorology)
(B2015/373)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 19 MARCH 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Bureau of Meteorology).

[1] Consequent upon my reasons given at the conclusion of the proceedings on 18 March 2015, and having reviewed the further-revised draft order settled between the parties and lodged this afternoon, the order [PR562135] for a protected action ballot now issues.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

G. Noble for the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia.

C. Stocks for the Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Bureau of Meteorology).

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney/Melbourne via telephone;

March, 18.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an action by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia, acting through and represented by the Bureau of Meteorology. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, who were employees of the Bureau of Meteorology. The Commonwealth opposed the ballot, contending that the union's proposed action could adversely affect the operations of the Bureau and, by extension, public safety and essential services.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of sections 57 and 58 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Cth) and related regulations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union's proposed action constituted a protected action under the Act and, if so, whether the Bureau's objection to the ballot was justified. The court also considered whether the Bureau had acted reasonably in opposing the ballot and whether the union's proposed action could be deemed to pose a risk to public safety or essential services.

The court held that the union's proposed action did constitute a protected action under the Act and that the Bureau's objection to the ballot was not justified. In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature of the proposed action and its potential impact on the Bureau's operations. The court found that the Bureau had not demonstrated a sufficient risk to public safety or essential services to warrant opposing the ballot. The court also held that the Bureau had not acted reasonably in its objection, as it had not adequately considered the union's rights under the Act.

The court ordered the Commonwealth to permit the union to conduct the proposed ballot among its members. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of public sector employees to engage in protected action with the need to maintain essential services and public safety. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that objections to protected action ballots must be based on a clear and compelling demonstration of risk, and that such objections must be reasonable and proportionate.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Commonwealth of Australia (acting through and represented by the Bureau of Meteorology)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established