National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Swinburne University of Technology

Case [2023] FWC 978


[2023] FWC 978

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v

Swinburne University of Technology

(B2023/371)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Swinburne University of Technology

  1. 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 Swinburne University of Technology (Respondent).

  1. On 24 April 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Linda Cargill 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.

  1. The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is TrueVote Pty Ltd.  Mr Stephen Donaldson (Business Owner of TrueVote Pty Ltd) has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for TrueVote, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that Mr Donaldson is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Stephen Donaldson and TrueVote are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. TrueVote has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Donaldson and TrueVote are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

  1. Therefore, I appoint TrueVote as the protected action ballot agent.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR761375.



DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761374>

Details
AGLC
National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Swinburne University of Technology [2023] FWC 978
Case
[2023] FWC 978
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order allowing a protected action ballot among certain employees of Swinburne University of Technology (Swinburne). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from the union's attempt to reach an agreement with the university, with the union asserting it had been genuinely trying to negotiate in good faith. The university did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to decide the matter without a hearing. The union also sought to appoint TrueVote Pty Ltd, rather than the Australian Electoral Commission, as the ballot agent, a request that was also unopposed by the university.

The legal issues before the court included whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and if the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the university. Additionally, the court needed to determine if TrueVote was a suitable and capable agent to conduct the ballot, ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes. The union provided a declaration from Ms Linda Cargill and the statutory declaration of Mr Stephen Donaldson, the Business Owner of TrueVote, to support their application.

The Deputy President found that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The court was satisfied that Mr Stephen Donaldson and TrueVote were fit and proper persons to conduct the ballot and were capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes. The Deputy President appointed TrueVote as the protected action ballot agent, subject to compliance with the Privacy Act 1998. An order was separately issued in PR761375.

The Deputy President concluded by appointing TrueVote as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot, ensuring the process would be conducted in accordance with the relevant legal requirements. This decision allowed the union to proceed with the ballot, facilitating potential protected action among the employees.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.