DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v
University of the Sunshine Coast
(B2019/307)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 APRIL 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of University of the Sunshine Coast.

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

[2] On 12 April 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Michael James McNally of the Applicant declared on 10 April 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR707003.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Tertiary Education Industry Union contested the University of the Sunshine Coast's refusal to allow a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected industrial action. The dispute arose as the union sought to conduct a lawful ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009, but the university objected on the grounds that the ballot notice did not comply with the Act's requirements. The court was tasked with determining whether the union's ballot notice was adequate and if the university had valid reasons to prevent the ballot.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of sections of the Fair Work Act, particularly those concerning the form and content of a ballot notice. The union argued that their notice was sufficiently detailed and complied with the statutory requirements, while the university maintained that the notice lacked essential information and was therefore invalid. The court had to assess the adequacy of the ballot notice in light of the legislative provisions and decide whether the university's objections were justified.

The Federal Court found that the union's ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements as it failed to include essential details such as the duration of the proposed industrial action and the specific matters to be balloted. Consequently, the court ruled that the university's refusal to facilitate the ballot was lawful. The union's application for an order to compel the university to allow the ballot was dismissed, and the university's decision upheld.

The court's decision was definitive, and no further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the union's application. The university was not required to facilitate the proposed ballot as the notice did not comply with the statutory obligations under the Fair Work Act.

National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of the Sunshine Coast

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established