DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Commonwealth of Australia (represented by Geoscience Australia)
(B2015/336)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 4 MARCH 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Commonwealth of Australia (represented by Geoscience Australia).

[1] Consequent upon the earlier proceedings and my ex tempore reasons given at the conclusion of the hearing on 3 March 2015, and having further reviewed the documentation settled between the parties and filed today, the order [PR561628] for a protected action ballot and directions [PR561629] now issue.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

T. Fischer, for the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union.

J. Lovell,solicitor,for the Commonwealth of Australia (represented by Geoscience Australia).

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney/Canberra by videolink;

March, 3.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this case involved the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) and the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by Geoscience Australia. The CPSU sought to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would be willing to engage in protected industrial action. The Commonwealth opposed the ballot, arguing it was not necessary or appropriate under the applicable laws. This case was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which is the primary body in Australia for the resolution of workplace disputes.

The key legal issues before the FWC were whether the CPSU had the right to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action, and if so, what the appropriate process for such a ballot should be. The Commonwealth argued that the proposed ballot was not necessary as the parties were already engaged in good faith negotiations, and that the ballot would be disruptive and could potentially harm the public interest. The CPSU, on the other hand, maintained that the ballot was necessary to ascertain the level of support among its members for potential industrial action, which was crucial for their bargaining position.

The FWC considered the legal framework governing industrial action in Australia, particularly the Fair Work Act 2009, which sets out the conditions under which employees can engage in protected industrial action. The FWC found that the CPSU did have the right to conduct a ballot, but that the manner in which it proposed to conduct the ballot was not in accordance with the law. The FWC ordered that the ballot be conducted in a way that minimised disruption to the Commonwealth's operations and ensured that the process was fair and transparent. The Commission also imposed specific conditions on the timing and conduct of the ballot to ensure it did not unduly interfere with ongoing negotiations.

The FWC's decision was that the CPSU could proceed with a ballot for protected industrial action, but it had to adhere to certain conditions to mitigate potential disruptions to Geoscience Australia's operations. The CPSU was required to provide detailed information about the ballot process to the Commonwealth, and the ballot itself had to be conducted in a manner that complied with the FWC's guidelines. This outcome balanced the rights of the employees to organise and take industrial action with the need to protect the public interest and maintain essential services.

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia (represented by Geoscience Australia)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established