DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Firefighters’ Union of Australia; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; United Voice
v
Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority
(B2019/31)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority.

[1] This is an application by the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; and United Voice (Applicants) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (Respondent).

[2] On 15 January 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 declarations of Mr J Murphy, Ms S Riley and Mr M Coggin of the Applicants declared on 11 January, 10 January and 14 January 2019 respectively, 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 PR703881.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was called upon to determine whether a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicants, United Voice, sought authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot in relation to potential industrial action. The respondents, ESTA, argued that the proposed action was not protected action, as it did not meet the statutory requirements under the Act.

The central issue before the FWC was whether the proposed industrial action ballot could be characterised as protected action. This required the FWC to examine whether the proposed action was genuinely intended for the purpose of giving effect to an industrial claim. Additionally, the FWC needed to determine whether the proposed action was carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Fair Work Act and the relevant industrial instruments.

In examining the matter, the FWC considered the nature of the proposed industrial action and the context in which it was to be undertaken. The FWC found that the proposed action was genuinely intended to give effect to an industrial claim, as the applicants sought to improve the terms and conditions of employment for the employees. The FWC also concluded that the proposed action complied with the procedures outlined in the Act and the relevant industrial instruments. As a result, the FWC authorised the proposed industrial action ballot.

The FWC granted the application for authorisation of the proposed industrial action ballot, finding that it constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. The FWC determined that the proposed action was genuinely intended for the purpose of giving effect to an industrial claim and was carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements.

United Voice v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established