ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – ss.437, 443 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant made three applications for protected action ballot orders in relation to certain employees of the respondent – application opposed on grounds relating to form and nature of questions – respondent submitted any resulting action to parts of the questions could not be industrial action as defined by FW Act – found that while some communications may be industrial action does not mean that all communications will fall within the definition [Laing] – found that parts of question that involved stoppage of work for a period of time within which certain things must be done may amount to industrial action [Nillimbik] – found that parts of the question that go to wearing of campaign clothing and/or badges or a refusal to wear certain clothing may constitute industrial action [Mornington] – satisfied that three distinct applications for protected industrial action were made – satisfied the applicant was genuinely trying to reach agreement – questions in protected action ballot orders to be amended in accordance with decision – protected action ballot orders will be made. Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Mornington Peninsula Shire
…
