Independent Education Union of Australia v Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland- Newcastle Trading as the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Schools Office T/A Diocese of Maitland- Newcastle..

[2024] FWC 1128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Independent Education Union of Australia
v

Roman Catholic Church For The Diocese Of Maitland- Newcastle Trading As The Diocese Of Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Schools Office T/A Diocese Of Maitland- Newcastle Catholic Schools Office

(B2024/493)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 1 MAY 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland- Newcastle trading as the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Schools Office

The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) has made an application under s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle trading as the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Schools Office (Respondent).

At a directions hearing on 30 April 2024, the Respondent informed the Fair Work Commission that it withdrew its objections to the ballot questions proposed by the IEU and did not oppose the making of the orders sought by the IEU.

On the basis of the material filed by the Respondent, I am satisfied that the requirements in Part 3-3 of the Act for a protected action ballot order have been met.

An order will be separately issued in PR774379.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle trading as the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Schools Office. The union sought to hold a ballot for protected action, likely related to industrial action such as a strike or other form of protest, among the employees of the Respondent. The Respondent, which initially objected to the proposed ballot, withdrew its objections and did not oppose the making of the orders sought by the IEU during a directions hearing.

The legal issues before the Fair Work Commission involved determining whether the IEU's application met the requirements under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. This includes verifying that the union had valid reasons for seeking such a ballot, that the ballot questions were appropriately framed, and that the Respondent had no legitimate objections to the ballot. The Respondent's withdrawal of objections and its decision not to oppose the making of the orders played a crucial role in resolving the dispute.

Deputy President Saunders concluded that the requirements for a protected action ballot order had been met based on the information provided by the Respondent. Given that the Respondent had withdrawn its objections and did not oppose the ballot, the Commission was satisfied that all procedural and substantive requirements under the Fair Work Act were fulfilled. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was successful.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order allowing the IEU to proceed with the ballot among the employees of the Respondent. This decision confirms the IEU's right to hold the ballot as per the application and ensures that the employees can participate in the process without further hindrance from the Respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established