ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – ss.437, 443 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant sought a protected action ballot order (PABO) for all Swinburne TAFE staff, staff teaching ELICOS or Pathways programs staff responsible for the oversight of courses in TAFE, ELICOS or Pathway programs employed by Swinburne (PAVE teaching staff) for whom the applicant is a bargaining representative – respondent objected to application – applicant and respondent have been bargaining for a replacement agreement – applicant was bargaining for a single enterprise agreement – respondent wanted to be part of a multi-enterprise agreement (MEA) to cover Swinburne and other TAFE institutes – respondent did not agree to bargaining for a single enterprise agreement – respondent submitted a PABO must not be issued in relation to a multi-enterprise agreement – respondent argued that industrial action arising from the application would not be protected action as it would be in relation to the proposed multienterprise agreement – respondent further submitted if a PABO was issued where the industrial action stemming from it was not protected, then the PABO should not be issued – Commission satisfied the requirements of s.443 of the FW Act were met – none of the industrial action would be in relation to the MEA – respondent submitted wording of three ballot questions either vague and unclear or related to action that could not be considered industrial action – applicant consented to rewording question in relation to out of office messages which was accepted by the respondent – Commission allowed the remaining two disputed ‘vague and unclear’ questions as was satisfied the employees would understand the questions [John Holland] – Commission satisfied NTEU met requirements of the FW Act and the PABO was issued. National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Swinburne University of Technology
…
