DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Independent Education Union of Australia
v
Woodleigh School
(B2021/616)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Woodleigh School.

[1] This is an application by the Independent Education Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Woodleigh School (Respondent).

[2] On 3 August 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Earl James of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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 PR732409.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Independent Education Union of Australia v Woodleigh School, the Independent Education Union of Australia sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Woodleigh School. The school opposed the ballot on the grounds that it would unduly interfere with the operations of the institution. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot by the union constituted an industrial action that required a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission had to determine whether the school's operations would be unduly interfered with if the ballot were to proceed. The Commission examined the nature of the proposed industrial action and its potential impact on the school's ability to function effectively.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, found that the proposed industrial action did indeed require a protected action ballot. However, the Commission also determined that allowing the ballot to proceed would unduly interfere with the school's operations, as the ballot was likely to cause significant disruption to the educational services provided by Woodleigh School. Consequently, the Commission decided to disallow the ballot, balancing the union's right to organise with the school's operational needs.

No further orders were made by the Commission beyond the disallowance of the ballot.

Independent Education Union of Australia v Woodleigh School

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established