DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Voice
v
ACT Education Directorate T/A ACT Department of Education and Training Territorial
(B2018/393)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

DARWIN, 22 MAY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ACT Education Directorate Trading as ACT Department of Education and Training Territorial.

[1] This is an application by United Voice (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ACT Education Directorate Trading as ACT Department of Education and Training Territorial (Respondent).

[2] On 22 May 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 matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms L Ryan 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 PR607310.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice v ACT Education Directorate Trading as ACT Department of Education and Training Territorial involved the union United Voice seeking authorisation for a proposed industrial action ballot of employees. The ACT Education Directorate, represented by the ACT Department of Education and Training Territorial, contested the proposed ballot. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed protected action ballot was compliant with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action and whether the union had fulfilled the necessary procedural steps. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if the proposed industrial action was genuinely in pursuit of the employees' economic interests.

In its decision, the Commission held that the proposed protected action ballot did not meet the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the ballot was not genuinely intended for the purpose of pursuing the economic interests of the employees. The union failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the proposed industrial action and the employees' economic interests, as required by the Act. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for authorisation of the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that industrial action ballots are genuinely aimed at advancing the economic interests of the employees, and not for any other extraneous purpose.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for authorisation of the proposed protected action ballot be dismissed. The Commission's decision underscored the necessity for unions to adhere strictly to the legal requirements when organising industrial action, ensuring that the actions are genuinely in pursuit of the employees' economic interests.

United Voice v ACT Education Directorate T/A Act Department of Education and Training Territorial

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established