DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Voice
v
Zoological Parks and Gardens Board T/A Zoos Victoria
(B2019/61)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Zoos Victoria.

[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 Zoological Parks and Gardens Board T/A Zoos Victoria (Respondent).

[2] On 25 January 2019, 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 D Robson 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 PR704355.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between United Voice, the union representing the employees of Zoos Victoria, and the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board T/A Zoos Victoria was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to hold a protected action ballot of its members, seeking authorisation for potential industrial action. The Board opposed the ballot, contending that it did not comply with the necessary statutory requirements and that holding such a ballot would cause significant harm to the operations of the zoo.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, including the requirements for a protected action ballot, the considerations that must be taken into account in authorising a ballot, and the potential consequences of the proposed industrial action. The primary issue was whether the union had satisfied all the statutory prerequisites for conducting the ballot and whether the potential harm to Zoos Victoria outweighed the union's right to hold the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, as the proposed ballot notice complied with the necessary provisions of the Fair Work Act. The Commission also considered the potential impact of the industrial action on Zoos Victoria, including the risk to public health and safety, animal welfare, and the ongoing operations of the zoo. After weighing these factors, the Commission concluded that the potential harm to Zoos Victoria and its patrons was significant and that the union had not demonstrated that the ballot was necessary in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the Commission did not grant the union's application for authorisation of the ballot.

In light of the Commission's determination, the union's application for authorisation of the proposed protected action ballot was dismissed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot and the need for unions to carefully consider the potential consequences of industrial action before seeking to hold a ballot.

United Voice v Zoological Parks and Gardens Board T/A Zoos Victoria

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established