National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of South Australia

Case [2022] FWC 2869


[2022] FWC 2869

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Tertiary Education Industry Union

v

University of South Australia

(B2022/1606)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 25 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of University of South Australia.

  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 University of South Australia (Respondent).

  1. On 25 October 2022, 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 Annie Buchecker 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 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 Mr Stephen Donaldson (Business Owner of TrueVote Pty Ltd). I am satisfied that Mr Donaldson is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that he is capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Mr Donaldson has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and is 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 Mr Stephen Donaldson as the protected action ballot agent

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR747208.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747207>

Details
AGLC
National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of South Australia [2022] FWC 2869
Case
[2022] FWC 2869
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide on an application by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the University of South Australia. The Union sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The University of South Australia did not object to the application. The Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Union had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the University. Additionally, the Union sought to appoint a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. The University did not object to this course.

The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Union had also proposed Mr Stephen Donaldson as the protected action ballot agent. The University did not object to this proposal. The Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Donaldson was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot and that he was capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Therefore, the Deputy President appointed Mr Stephen Donaldson as the protected action ballot agent.

The final orders were that Mr Stephen Donaldson be appointed as the protected action ballot agent, and an order was separately issued in PR747208.

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.