[2014] FWC 7461
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 21 October 2014.
● In paragraph [1] and [3] the Applicant has been corrected to CPSU.
Renee Mooney
Associate to Commissioner Bissett
Dated 28 October 2014
| [2014] FWC 7461 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.459—Protected action
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Transport Accident Commission
(B2014/1446)
COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2014 |
Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2014/1253.
[1] The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has made an application pursuant to s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to extend the 30-day period in which industrial action is authorised by the respective protected action ballot.
[2] The Protected Action Ballot Order was made on 14 August 2014 [PR554329]. The ballot was declared by the Australian Electoral Commission on 9 September 2014. The 30-day period starting from the date of the declaration of the ballot, expires on 3 October 2014.
[3] The CPSU lodged the application to extend the 30-day period on 9 October 2014. They have not previously sought to extend the period.
[4] Section 459 of the Act reads as follows:
459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot
(1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:
(a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and
(b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and
(c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and
(d) the action commences:
(i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or
(ii) if FWA has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.
Note: Under Division 2, industrial action by employees for a proposed enterprise agreement (other than employee response action) is not protected industrial action unless it has been authorised in advance by a protected action ballot.
(2) If:
(a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and
(b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;
then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).
(3) FWA may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:
(a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to FWA for the period to be extended; and
(b) the period has not previously been extended.
[5] On 17 October 2014, my associate contacted Transport Accident Commission to determine if it had any submissions it wished to make on the application. I was subsequently advised in writing on 21 October 2014 that it did not oppose the application.
[6] In my opinion there is no need to hold a hearing to determine this matter. The requirements in s.459(3)(a) and (b) have been met.
[7] The application for an extension of the 30-day period is granted.
[8] An order to this effect shall be issued today.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR556855>
- AGLC
- CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Transport Accident Commission [2014] FWC 7461
- Case
- [2014] FWC 7461
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the CPSU had provided sufficient justification for the extension of the 30-day period. The Commission needed to consider whether the circumstances presented by the CPSU were exceptional and warranted a departure from the usual procedural timelines. The Fair Work Act and associated regulations set out the specific requirements and potential grounds for an extension. The Commission examined the application in light of these statutory provisions and case law precedents.
After a thorough review of the evidence and submissions, the Commission concluded that the CPSU had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of the 30-day period. The application was dismissed on the basis that the grounds presented did not meet the threshold for an extension. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The Fair Work Commission upheld the standard procedural timeframe and did not grant the CPSU's request for an extension.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.