National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Griffith University

[2022] FWC 2213

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v

Griffith University

(B2022/1243)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Griffith University

This is an application by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (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 Griffith University (Respondent).

On 18 August 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Robert Kenneth Rule of the Applicant declared on 16 August 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR744981.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order permitting a protected action ballot of certain employees of Griffith University. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the university but had been unable to do so. The university did not oppose the application.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act, which relates to the timing of the notification of the proposed agreement and the conduct of the union in its negotiations with the university. The Commission needed to determine whether the union had taken all necessary steps in good faith to reach an agreement and whether the requisite notification period had elapsed.

The Vice President, Catanzariti, concluded that the union had indeed met the statutory requirements and had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The evidence, including a statutory declaration from a representative of the union, demonstrated that the union had followed proper procedures and had made efforts to negotiate in good faith. The requisite notification period had also been satisfied. Therefore, the Commission was satisfied that the conditions for a protected action ballot were met. An order was subsequently issued allowing the ballot to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established