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
August 23, 2016
BizHealth Consultants Pty Ltd is defending a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute in relation to flexible working arrangements) lodged by Freedom4life.
August 23, 2016
Grogans Chemmart Pharmacy has been served with a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) by Ansett.
August 22, 2016
An application for approval of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service Medical Officers Enterprise Agreement Western Australia 2016 (s.185 – Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement) will be decided by Commissioner Roe in his Melbourne chambers at 10.15am.
August 22, 2016
Mercy Public Hospital Inc is embroiled in a s.394 (Application for unfair dismissal remedy) at the instigation of a disaffected staff member (Born). This contretemps is in its second day.
August 22, 2016
The Community and Public Sector Union and Australian Government Department of Human Services are debating a s.739 (Application to deal with a dispute) before Fair Work Commissioner Bissett in Court 9 – Level 5 in Melbourne after lunch.
August 22, 2016
An application by United Voice and Health Services Union (s.160 – Application to vary a modern award to remove ambiguity or uncertainty or correct error) will fall to Fair Work Deputy President Booth for adjudication.
August 22, 2016
An application by Queensland Nurses’ Union of Employees (s.225 – Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date) will be decided by Commissioner Booth in Conference Room A in Brisbane.
