United Workers' Union v Commissioner for Public Employment (T/A Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service)

[2022] FWC 296

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Commissioner for Public Employment (T/A Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service)

(B2022/67)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service (Respondent).

On 11 February 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Erina Early of the Applicant declared on 8 February 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR738335.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the United Workers' Union sought an order to prevent the Commissioner for Public Employment, trading as the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, from proceeding with the proposed protected action ballot of employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the ballot in question was validly conducted under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and whether it complied with the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot.

The Commission found that the ballot process was not conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the ballot notice did not clearly outline the terms and conditions of the proposed industrial action, and the process was not transparent or fair. The Commission determined that the ballot was invalid due to these shortcomings. Consequently, the Union's application for an order to prevent the Commissioner from proceeding with the ballot was successful. The Commission ordered that the ballot process be halted and that the Commissioner must take steps to ensure that any future ballot is conducted in compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Commission's decision underscores the importance of adherence to the legal framework governing protected action ballots. Employers and unions alike must ensure that all procedural requirements are meticulously followed to maintain the integrity of the industrial action process. The Commission's ruling serves as a reminder of the need for clarity and fairness in the conduct of ballots, and it highlights the consequences of failing to comply with legislative mandates.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established