| [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
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).
On 24 April 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 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.
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.
Therefore, I appoint TrueVote as the protected action ballot agent.
An order has been separately issued in PR761375.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761374>
- 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 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.