CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Case
•
[2010] FWA 8293
•26 OCTOBER 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Australian Customs and Border Protection Service [2010] FWA 8293
[2010] FWA 8293
26 OCTOBER 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) sought a ballot order from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to authorise protected action, including a strike, in relation to a dispute with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS). The ACBPS argued that the proposed ballot question, which combined multiple forms of industrial action into a single question, was not compliant with the Fair Work Act. The matter was heard and determined by the Full Bench of the FWC.
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the form of the ballot question proposed by the CPSU was acceptable. Specifically, the FWC had to determine if the ‘rolled up’ question, which asked employees to approve a range of industrial actions in one question, was permissible under the Act. The ACBPS contended that the question was unclear and did not allow employees to make an informed decision on each form of action separately.
In resolving the issue, the FWC noted that while the Act requires ballot questions to be clear and precise, it does not mandate that each form of industrial action be addressed in a separate question. The FWC found that the proposed question, while not ideal, did not breach the requirements of clarity and precision. The FWC determined that the form of the question was acceptable and did not prevent employees from making an informed decision. The FWC granted the CPSU's application for a ballot order, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.
The FWC’s decision underscores the importance of clarity in ballot questions while also recognising the practicalities of conducting a ballot. The FWC found that the form of the question, while not perfect, did not prevent employees from making an informed decision on the proposed industrial actions. The FWC’s ruling ensures that the ballot can proceed, enabling the CPSU to pursue its industrial action as planned.
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the form of the ballot question proposed by the CPSU was acceptable. Specifically, the FWC had to determine if the ‘rolled up’ question, which asked employees to approve a range of industrial actions in one question, was permissible under the Act. The ACBPS contended that the question was unclear and did not allow employees to make an informed decision on each form of action separately.
In resolving the issue, the FWC noted that while the Act requires ballot questions to be clear and precise, it does not mandate that each form of industrial action be addressed in a separate question. The FWC found that the proposed question, while not ideal, did not breach the requirements of clarity and precision. The FWC determined that the form of the question was acceptable and did not prevent employees from making an informed decision. The FWC granted the CPSU's application for a ballot order, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.
The FWC’s decision underscores the importance of clarity in ballot questions while also recognising the practicalities of conducting a ballot. The FWC found that the form of the question, while not perfect, did not prevent employees from making an informed decision on the proposed industrial actions. The FWC’s ruling ensures that the ballot can proceed, enabling the CPSU to pursue its industrial action as planned.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Protected Action
-
Industrial Action
-
Collective Bargaining
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australian Education Union - Northern Territory Branch v Commissioner for Public Employment [2013] FWC 7567
Cases Citing This Decision
12
[2012] FWA 5780FAIR WORK AUSTRALIADECISIONFair Work Act 2009 s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order"
[2012] FWA 5780
HSU v Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health
[2012] FWA 4633
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0