ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act – application for protection action ballot – respondent not convinced questions asked in ballot met definition of industrial action – Commission not convinced action specified in number of parts met definition taking into account most recent authorities – applicant filed amended application – following receipt of amended application respondent advised it was not convinced parts 1, 2, 3 and 11 met definition – Commission satisfied parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15 constitute industrial action for similar reasons as those expressed in ANMF v Nillumbik Shire Council – Commission satisfied parts 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 industrial action – Commission had to determine whether parts 1, 2, 3 and 11 fell within definition of industrial action – Commission satisfied part 1 may be subject to ballot but held it was responsibility of those engaging in industrial action arising from ballot to ensure action was properly taken to maintain protected status – Commission satisfied in relation to Parts 2 and 3 that normal course of work of employees involved email communication and by adding additional wording they were performing work ‘in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed’ – ban on sending emails that did not contain the specified statement was ‘a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work by an employee’ – Commission found in relation to part 11 that industrial action involved a stoppage of work with a specified purpose and was satisfied it may form part of question asked in ballot – held observation in ASU v Lend Lease should be borne in mind by those taking industrial action arising from ballot should it succeed – held application made pursuant to the Act – satisfied applicant genuinely trying to reach agreement – held requirements met and order to be made. Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Launch Housing
