National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Queensland University of Technology

[2018] FWC 6461

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Tertiary Education Industry Union

Queensland University of Technology

(B2018/941)

deputy president kovacic

CANBERRA, 19 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland University of Technology.

This is an application by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland University of Technology (Respondent).

On 17 October 2018, 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 Mr D Nielsen 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.

An Order and Directions have been separately issued in PR701560 and PR701562 respectively.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the National Tertiary Education Industry Union and the Queensland University of Technology concerned the proposed protected action ballot of employees at the university. The union intended to conduct a ballot to ascertain the employees' support for protected action, potentially leading to a strike. The university contested the ballot, arguing it contravened certain provisions of the relevant industrial legislation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the applicable industrial laws and regulations. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had correctly followed the statutory requirements and if the ballot would appropriately inform the employees about the potential consequences of the protected action. The court had to examine the legislative framework governing industrial action in the context of the university's status and the rights of its employees.

The court found that the union's ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements. It was held that the union had correctly informed the employees about the potential outcomes of the protected action, including any financial and reputational impacts. The court emphasised the importance of transparency in the industrial action process and confirmed that the union had met its obligations under the law. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed as planned. The final order confirmed the legality of the ballot and directed the university to facilitate the process in accordance with the union's request.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established