United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (Esta) Summary

[2014] FWC 663

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Firefighters' Union of Australia
v
Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA)
(B2014/463)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

ALBURY, 28 JANUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA).

[1] On 24 January 2014 the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia (UFU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] ESTA was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission). The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission.

[4] On 24 January 2014, ESTA advised the Commission it opposed the application in respect of particular types of industrial action.

[5] The matter was listed for hearing by telephone on 28 January 2014.

[6] On 28 January 2014, the UFU filed in the Commission an amended application and amended draft Order to take account of ESTA’s objections. Subsequently, ESTA confirmed that it no longer opposed the application. ESTA does not contest that the UFU has been genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[7] The Commission is satisfied the matter can be dealt with on the papers. The hearing listed for 28 January 2014 was cancelled.

[8] The UFU indicated that it wanted to ballot,

Full time, part time and casual Call Takers, Dispatchers Team Leaders, Trainee Call Takers, Trainee Dispatchers who are eligible to be represented by the United Firefighters Union and who are employees of the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority.

[9] That description of the group of employees to be balloted goes beyond what is necessary under s.437(5) of the Act. The Order will reflect the statutory prescription. The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Enterprise Agreement 2009-2011 which passed its nominal expiry date on 30 June 2012. Accordingly, the application is made well after the nominal expiry date.

[10] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1)(a) of the Act have been met.

[11] Further, pursuant to s.443(1)(b) of the Act the Commission is satisfied that the UFU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with ESTA. The Commission, as presently constituted, has considerable knowledge of the genuineness of both parties having unsuccessfully attempted to assist them through s.240 of the Act. That mechanism remains open to the parties.

[12] The Commission, being satisfied that all of the statutory requirements are met, an order must be made.

[13] The Order [PR547202] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved the United Firefighters' Union of Australia and the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA). The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among ESTA employees to gauge support for industrial action. The ESTA, on the other hand, argued that the proposed ballot was not eligible for protection under the relevant industrial relations legislation. This dispute was adjudicated by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the FWC were whether the proposed ballot met the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the union had acted within its powers in proposing the ballot. Specifically, the FWC had to determine whether the ballot notice was appropriately served, whether the ballot related to protected action, and whether the union had complied with all procedural requirements.

The FWC found that the union had indeed complied with all necessary procedural requirements and that the ballot notice was properly served. The commission also determined that the ballot related to protected action and was therefore eligible for protection under the Act. Consequently, the FWC ruled in favour of the union, affirming that the proposed ballot was valid and should proceed as planned.

The FWC's decision was that the union's proposed ballot was lawful and could proceed, and the ESTA's objections were dismissed. The tribunal provided detailed reasoning on procedural compliance and the nature of the proposed action, ensuring that all legal standards were met.

United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (Esta)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established