DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Independent Education Union of Australia – Queensland and Northern Territory Branch
v
Langports Pty Ltd T/A Langports English Language College
(B2019/228)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

DARWIN, 21 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Langports English Language College, Herschel Street, Brisbane.

[1] This is an application by the Independent Education Union of Australia – Queensland and Northern Territory Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Langports English Language College (Respondent).

[2] On 20 March 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Cherie Wills of the Applicant declared on 21 March 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR706042.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Independent Education Union of Australia Queensland and Northern Territory Branch v Langports Pty Ltd T/A Langports English Language College, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning a proposed protected action ballot of employees at Langports English Language College, located on Herschel Street in Brisbane. The union sought to conduct a ballot to determine the employees' willingness to take industrial action, which the employer contested on the grounds that the union had not provided adequate information about the nature of the proposed action.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's notice of the proposed protected action ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the employer argued that the union's notice was deficient because it did not clearly outline the specific industrial action that the employees were being asked to support. The union contended that the notice was sufficient, as it provided a general description of the action and the reasons for it.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the union, ruling that the notice given by the union was adequate. The Commission held that the notice provided a sufficient general description of the proposed action, which was appropriate given the nature of the dispute. The Commission also noted that the union had offered to provide further details to the employer, which mitigated any deficiencies in the initial notice. Consequently, the Commission authorised the union to proceed with the ballot as proposed. The employer's application to prevent the ballot was dismissed.

Independent Education Union of Australia Queensland and Northern Territory Branch v Langports Pty Ltd T/A Langports English Language College

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established