Independent Education Union of Australia v Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc. T/A Islamic School of Canberra

[2019] FWC 3697

[2019] FWC 3697

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Independent Education Union of Australia
v
Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc. T/A Islamic School of Canberra
(B2019/424)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS SYDNEY, 28 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc. T/A Islamic School of Canberra.

[1] On 27 May 2019, the Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) made an application for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) in relation to a group of employees of the Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc T/A Islamic School of Canberra (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) and was initially dealt with by Vice President Catanzariti.

[3] The Employers were served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered the Islamic School of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013 [AE889563] (Agreement). The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2013.

[5] The Employer’s representative, the Association of Independent Schools of NSW (AISNSW), sought an adjournment of the matter until 12 June 2019 so that it could obtain better instructions in the matter following Ramadan. The IEU objected to an adjournment. Consequently, the matter was allocated to me today. Noting the statutory injunction imposed on the Commission to deal with such applications within 2 business days the matter was immediately listed for hearing.

[6] The Respondent objected to the issuing of the proposed Order on the basis that, it contended, I could not be satisfied that the application specified questions to be put about the nature of proposed industrial action (s.437(3)(b), s.443(1)(a)). The Respondent objected to the phrasing of proposed question (b). In doing so relied upon the decision in Ambulance Victoria v United Voice. 1 The AISNSW submitted that the action was not industrial action. Following further discussion the IEU made an application to amend question (b). I acceded to the IEU doing so and waived compliance with the Rules. I did so noting that the Commission must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is “quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities” (s.577(b)). Following the amendment, the Respondent withdrew its objection to the application.

[7] The Commission, as presently constituted, is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, the PABO must be made.

[8] An order [PR708792] will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms A Hioe, for the Applicant

Ms C Bailey, for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

28 May 2019, Sydney

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR708794>

 1 (includes Corrigendum dated 18 November 2014) [2014] FCA 1119 (17 October 2014).