DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia
v
Airservices Australia
(B2018/638)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 31 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Airservices Australia.

[1] This is an application by The Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association 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 Airservices Australia (Respondent).

[2] On 27 July 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does 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 Mr M Butterworth 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 PR609593.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia brought proceedings against Airservices Australia in the Federal Court, seeking a declaration that the association had the right to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would take protected action. Airservices Australia opposed the application, arguing that the association was not a registered union and therefore could not lawfully conduct a ballot. The association contended that section 37 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) permitted the conduct of such a ballot without the need for the association to be registered as a union.

The court was required to determine whether section 37 of the Fair Work Act permitted the association to conduct a ballot of its members without the need for registration as a union. The court found that the language of section 37 was clear and unambiguous and did not require the association to be registered as a union to conduct a ballot. The court further found that the association had satisfied the requirements of section 37, including the requirement to provide Airservices Australia with the prescribed particulars of the proposed action.

The court held that the association was entitled to conduct a ballot of its members without the need for registration as a union. The court found that the association had satisfied the requirements of section 37, including the requirement to provide Airservices Australia with the prescribed particulars of the proposed action. The association was granted a declaration to the effect that it had the right to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would take protected action.

The court made a declaration that the association had the right to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would take protected action. The court further ordered Airservices Australia to take all necessary steps to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia v Airservices Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established