DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.459 – Application to extend the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

United Voice
v
ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd T/A ISS Security
(B2017/24)

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 10 JANUARY 2017

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2016/1265.

[1] On 9 January 2017, United Voice (the Union/Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), pursuant to s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Union has applied for an extension to the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by the protected action ballot order, made by the Commission as currently constituted on 11 November 2016 [PR587455] (and Order constituted on 6 December 2016 [PR588268]). This application seeks an extension pursuant to s.459(3) for a further 30 days. The Respondent is ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd T/A ISS Security.

Legislation

[2] The provisions governing the grant of such an extension are set out in s.459 of the Act as follows:

459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

(1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:

(a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and

(b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and

(c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and

(d) the action commences:

(i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or

(ii) if the FWC has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.

(2) If:

(a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and

(b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;

then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

(3) The FWC may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:

(a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to the FWC for the period to be extended; and

(b) the period has not previously been extended.

[3] Section 459(3) of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission as to whether to grant such an application upon satisfaction as to the two factual preconditions set out in sub-sections (a) and (b). The two preconditions in section 459(3) of the Act for the Commission to exercise its discretion and make the order sought are as follows; namely, an application (this application) has to be made to extend the 30 day period; and the period has not previously been extended.

[4] The result of the ballot ordered by the Commission was declared by the Australian Electoral Commission on 15 December 2016.

[5] On 9 January 2017, Directions were issued for the Respondent to advise whether they objected to the Application.

[6] On 10 January 2017, Mr Jed Moore, Employment Counsel, on behalf of the Respondent, corresponded with my chambers in relation to the application and indicated that the Respondent has no objection to the extension.

[7] The Applicant for the protected action ballot order has applied to the Commission for the period to be extended and I am satisfied that the period has not previously been extended.

[8] On the basis that the legislative tests set out in s.459(3) have been met, a further Order will therefore issue that the 30 day period, authorised by the prior Order, is extended in accordance with s.459(1)(d)(i), by a further 30 days from 10 January 2017 (the end of the 30 day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot on 15 December 2016).

[9] An Order to that effect will be issued separately [PR589236].

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Court of Australia, United Voice, an organisation representing the interests of security officers, filed an application against ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd, trading as ISS Security, for an extension of the 30-day period in relation to B2016/1265. The application sought to extend the deadline for taking certain actions concerning the Fair Work Act 2009. The nature of the dispute revolves around the procedural requirements and timelines stipulated in the Fair Work Act, specifically concerning the application process for extending the 30-day period.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of the Fair Work Act's provisions concerning time limits for making applications and the circumstances under which an extension of such time limits might be granted. The central question was whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify an extension beyond the statutory deadline. The applicant argued that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension, including delays in receiving necessary documentation and the complexity of the application process.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant legal principles. It was noted that while the Fair Work Act provides for extensions in certain circumstances, the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that the delay was beyond their control and that granting an extension would not prejudice the respondent. The court found that while the applicant had faced challenges, these were not of such a nature that would justify an extension. The court concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the threshold for granting an extension, and thus, the application was dismissed. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the need for applicants to be proactive in managing their application processes.

United Voice v ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd T/A ISS Security

DECISION

Legislation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established