DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Police Federation of Australia
v
Victoria Police
(B2019/1282)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Victoria Police.

[1] This is an application by the Police Federation of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Victoria Police (Respondent).

[2] On 8 November 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr W Gatt 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR714133.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police, the Police Federation sought to conduct a ballot of Victoria Police employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The dispute reached the court as the Victoria Police opposed the ballot, arguing it would disrupt essential services and undermine public safety. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had to determine the legality and admissibility of the proposed ballot under the relevant industrial relations laws.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the relevant legislation, specifically the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Vic). The court had to assess if the ballot's proposed timing and content were reasonable and whether it would unduly interfere with the essential services provided by Victoria Police. The court also needed to consider the balance between the employees' right to organise and the state's responsibility to ensure public safety.

The court held that the proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements. It found that the ballot, if conducted, would significantly disrupt the core functions of Victoria Police, thus affecting public safety. The court emphasised the need for a balance between the employees' rights and the state's obligation to maintain essential services. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Victoria Police, prohibiting the ballot from proceeding as proposed. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that any industrial action does not compromise the delivery of critical public services.

Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established