National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Griffith University

[2013] FWC 2855

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v
Griffith University
(B2013/103)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 8 MAY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Griffith University .

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union. The National Tertiary Education Industry Union seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Griffith University.

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been made met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR536418, based on the draft provided by the National tertiary Education Industry Union, will be issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Tertiary Education Industry Union, representing certain employees of Griffith University, sought to conduct a ballot on proposed protected industrial action. Griffith University opposed the ballot, resulting in a dispute that was brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The university argued that the ballot was not related to the employees' employer-employee relationship and thus not protected action. The union countered that the proposed action was directly connected to their employment and thus entitled to protection under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed protected action was connected to the employees' employer-employee relationship and thus protected under the Act. This required an examination of the nature of the proposed action and its relationship to the employment terms and conditions. The central issue was whether the action was genuinely related to the employees' employment, or if it was extraneous to their roles as employees.

The court found that the proposed action was indeed related to the employees' employer-employee relationship and was therefore protected under the Act. The judge held that the proposed action, which included a potential strike over pay and conditions, directly concerned the terms and conditions of employment. This connection to employment terms and conditions meant that the action qualified as protected action, and thus the union was entitled to conduct the ballot. The university's opposition to the ballot was dismissed, allowing the union to proceed with the proposed industrial action as planned.

The court's decision mandated that Griffith University allow the union to conduct the ballot on the proposed protected action. This ruling reinforced the importance of the connection between the proposed action and the employees' terms and conditions of employment in determining the legitimacy of protected action under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established