1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v
Swinburne University of Technology
(B2016/931)
Educational services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2016
Application for a protected action ballot order.
[1] The NTEU has made an application for a protected action ballot order (PABO)
pursuant to s.437 of the Act. The application is made in relation to a proposed enterprise
agreement the NTEU wish to make with Swinburne University of Technology (Swinburne) in
relation to a range of employees employed by Swinburne engaged in the oversight or teaching
of courses in the Pathways and Vocational Education Department of Swinburne.
[2] Swinburne objects to the granting of the PABO as it says that the Commission does
not have jurisdiction to grant the application because there has been no ‘notification time’ as
required in s.437(2A) of the Act in relation to the NTEU proposed agreement. It says
therefore, that there is no ability of the NTEU, as a bargaining representative, to make the
application.
[3] Swinburne submits that it has issued a notice that meets the requirements of the
‘notification time’ specified in s.173 of the Act but this this is in relation to its commitment to
negotiate a multi-enterprise agreement (MEA) in conjunction with a number of TAFE
institutes. It says that the MEA it has provided notice about is a different type of agreement to
the proposed enterprise agreement of the NTEU. For this reason, it says that there has been no
‘notification time in relation to the proposed agreement’ as sought by the NTEU.
[4] Swinburne therefore says that the Commission does not have jurisdiction and cannot
issue the PABO as sought by the NTEU.
Background
[5] On 19 November 2015, the NTEU served a log of claims on Swinburne in which it
sought to bargain for a single enterprise agreement in relation to employees engaged in the
oversight or teaching of courses in the Pathways and Vocational Education Department of
[2016] FWC 6323 [Note: This Decision has been quashed - refer to Full
Bench decision dated 27 September 2016 [2016] FWCFB 6838]
DECISIONS
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwcfb6838.htm
[2016] FWC 6323
2
Swinburne. It proposed that the agreement should apply to all employees of Swinburne not
covered by the Swinburne University of Technology, Academic & General Staff Enterprise
Agreement 2015.1
[6] On 4 December 2015, following a meeting between the NTEU and Swinburne, the
NTEU wrote to the University by email and sought advice ‘from the University in relation to
s173(2) of the Fair Work Act whether Swinburne University of Technology agrees to
bargain.’
[7] Swinburne replied on 7 December 2016 that it was not in apposition to commence
bargaining for a number of reasons including funding and some uncertainty about the NTEU’s
coverage of some staff (since resolved) but that it was its ‘hope to commence bargaining with
our employees and their representatives as soon as it is appropriate and sensible to do so.’
[8] On 14 April 2016, Swinburne wrote to the NTEU and advised that it had agreed to
participate with the Victorian TAFE Association and the stand-alone TAFES in bargaining for
a MEA. Swinburne understood that the NTEU and AEU would be involved in that bargaining
and it looked forward to working with both unions ‘in this process.’
[9] On 22 June 2016, Swinburne sent a message to all staff that it expected to commence
bargaining for a new TAFE MEA within the next two weeks. The communication
acknowledged the NTEU’s preference for a single enterprise agreement with Swinburne and
noted that it understood that the NTEU were seeing a majority support determination for that
purpose. (I take this as the notification time as it is the time that Swinburne agreed to bargain.)
[10] On 4 July 2016 and again on 11 July 2016, (to ensure staff returning from leave
received the notice) Swinburne issued a notice of employee representational rights (NERR) in
accordance with s.172(3) of the Act. The NERR indicated that Swinburne ‘gives notice that it
is bargaining in relation to an enterprise agreement the Victorian TAFE Teaching Staff Multi-
Enterprise Agreement 2016 which is proposed to cover employees that are teaching staff
members (excluding academic teachers) for the purposes of the Educational Services (Pose-
Secondary Education) Award 2010 (Award) and employees who coordinate and/or develop
the programs taught by those teaching staff.’
[11] On 18 July 2016, the NTEU made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the
Commission) for a majority support determination for an agreement to cover those staff
identified in its log of claims of 19 November 2016.
[12] On 21 July 2016, the NTEU wrote to Swinburne and advised that it had become aware
of the decision in The Maritime Union of Australia v Maersk Crewing Australia Pty Ltd2
(Maersk) and that it believed that the decision ‘put beyond doubt’ that the NTEU did not need
a majority support determination but could proceed to seeking a PABO.
The Legislation
[13] Section 437 of the Act states:
[2016] FWC 6323
3
437 Application for a protected action ballot order
Who may apply for a protected action ballot order
(1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed
enterprise agreement, or 2 or more such bargaining representatives (acting
jointly), may apply to the FWC for an order (a protected action ballot order)
requiring a protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether
employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for the
agreement.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the proposed enterprise agreement is:
(a) a greenfields agreement; or
(b) a multi-enterprise agreement.
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless there has been a notification time in
relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.
Note: For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot be taken
until after bargaining has commenced (including where the scope of the proposed enterprise
agreement is the only matter in dispute).
Matters to be specified in application
(3) The application must specify:
(a) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; and
(b) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be
balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
(4) If the applicant wishes a person other than the Australian Electoral
Commission to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action
ballot, the application must specify the name of the person.
Note: The protected action ballot agent will be the Australian Electoral Commission unless
the FWC specifies another person in the protected action ballot order as the protected action
ballot agent (see subsection 443(4)).
(5) A group of employees specified under paragraph (3)(a) is taken to include only
employees who:
(a) will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and
(b) either:
[2016] FWC 6323
4
(i) are represented by a bargaining representative who is an
applicant for the protected action ballot order; or
(ii) are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members
of an employee organisation that is an applicant for the
protected action ballot order.
Documents to accompany application
(6) The application must be accompanied by any documents and other information
prescribed by the regulations.
[14] The legislative note to s.437(2A) refers to the definition of ‘notification time’ in s.173
of the Act. Section 173 of the Act states:
173 Notice of employee representational rights
Employer to notify each employee of representational rights
(1) An employer that will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement that is
not a greenfields agreement must take all reasonable steps to give notice of the
right to be represented by a bargaining representative to each employee who:
(a) will be covered by the agreement; and
(b) is employed at the notification time for the agreement.
Note: For the content of the notice, see section 174.
Notification time
(2) The notification time for a proposed enterprise agreement is the time when:
(a) the employer agrees to bargain, or initiates bargaining, for the
agreement; or
(b) a majority support determination in relation to the agreement comes
into operation; or
(c) a scope order in relation to the agreement comes into operation; or
(d) a low-paid authorisation in relation to the agreement that specifies the
employer comes into operation.
Note: The employer cannot request employees to approve the agreement under section 181
until 21 days after the last notice is given (see subsection 181(2)).
[2016] FWC 6323
5
When notice must be given
(3) The employer must give the notice as soon as practicable, and not later than
14 days, after the notification time for the agreement.
Notice need not be given in certain circumstances
(4) An employer is not required to give a notice to an employee under
subsection (1) in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if the employer
has already given the employee a notice under that subsection within a
reasonable period before the notification time for the agreement.
How notices are given
(5) The regulations may prescribe how notices under subsection (1) may be given.
[15] There is no dispute that Swinburne has agreed to bargain. It provided a notice to this
effect on 22 June 2016 and subsequently issued the NERR on 4 July 2016 and then again on
11 July 2016.
[16] The matter in dispute is if the notification time that Swinburne says it gave in relation
to its intent to bargain for a proposed MEA satisfies the requirements of the Act in relation to
the NTEU’s proposed agreement which is a single enterprise agreement.
Submissions
National Tertiary Education Industry Union
[17] The NTEU submits that it has met the requirements of s.437 of the Act and that it is
genuinely trying to reach agreement. For this reason it says that the Commission must issue a
PABO.
[18] The NTEU submits that there has been a notification time ‘in relation to the proposed
enterprise agreement’ as required by s.437(2A).
[19] It submits that the ‘proposed agreement’ for a PABO was settled in Maersk so there is
no doubt that the proposed agreement is that sought by the applicant for the PABO.
[20] The NTEU says that it served its log of claims on Swinburne, that Swinburne initially
refused to bargain with it, although did eventually agree to bargain but not for the agreement
proposed by the NTEU (a single enterprise agreement) but rather for an MEA.
[21] The NTEU submits that Maersk is authority for the position that an application for a
PABO can be made when the notification time (s.437(2A)) relates to the agreement proposed
by the applicant for the PABO. It says that Swinburne has agreed to bargain. It says that
Maersk cannot be read down as proposed by Swinburne. It submits that Swinburne has agreed
to bargain, initiated bargaining, attended bargaining and rejected the NTEU proposed
enterprise agreement.
[2016] FWC 6323
6
[22] The NTEU says that its members are entitled to pursue their ‘proposed enterprise
agreement’ including through proposed industrial action.
Swinburne University
[23] Swinburne submits that there has been no notification time in relation to the NTEU
proposed enterprise agreement. It says that it has not agreed to bargain for the NTEU
proposed enterprise agreement.
[24] Swinburne seeks to distinguish the current circumstances from that in Maersk. It says
that Maersk ‘turns on its fact’ and these are that Maersk had agreed to bargain with three
unions and issued a NERR, the proposed agreement was rejected by employees when the
MUA proposed a single union enterprise agreement and the scope of the MUA proposed
agreement fell within the scope of the Maersk proposed enterprise agreement. Swinburne
submits that, in this case, while it has agreed to bargain for an MEA it has ‘steadfastly’
refused to bargain for the NTEU proposed enterprise agreement.
[25] It says that the proposed MEA over which it has given notice cannot be ‘in relation’ to
the NTEU proposed enterprise agreement. The proposed enterprise agreement in s.437(2A) of
the Act must have the same meaning as the proposed enterprise agreement in s.437(2) and
both must be referring to the proposed enterprise agreement in s.437(1) of the Act. Swinburne
says that the proposed enterprise agreement in s.437(2) cannot be a multi-enterprise
agreement because industrial action cannot relate to a multi-enterprise agreement (s.413(2) of
the Act).
[26] Further, Swinburne says that a multi-enterprise agreement is a different creature to a
single-enterprise agreement. It identifies a number of points of distinction between an MEA
and single enterprise agreement including, the capacity to vary the scope of an MEA after
agreement has been sought but prior to an application being made to the Commission to
approve it, that a majority support determination is not available for an MEA, scope orders are
not available for an MEA etc.
[27] Swinburne says that its notification time for the MEA does not constitute the
notification in relation to the NTEU proposed enterprise agreement because:
Its agreement to bargain was specifically for an MEA;
The NERR it issued was specifically for an MEA;
An agreement to bargain for an MEA must be made within the statutory scheme
which does not countenance protected industrial action being available for an
MEA;
An MEA is a different type of agreement to an single enterprise agreement;
It would be antagonistic to the statutory scheme to permit the NTEU to use
Swinburne’s proposed MEA as the basis for its application for a PABO for its
proposed agreement.
[2016] FWC 6323
7
Consideration
[28] This matter turns on whether the notification time for the proposed agreement given
by Swinburne meets the requirements of s.437(2A) such that the NTEU can make an
application for a PABO and the Commission has jurisdiction to consider that application.
The decision in Maersk
[29] Swinburne’s summary of the background circumstances in Maersk is correct. The
issue that fell to the Full Bench to determine was if the scope of the proposed agreement
sought in respect of the PABO had to be the same as that proposed at the ‘notification time’ in
respect of the proposed agreement.
[30] The Full Bench in Maersk said:
[24] Contrary to Maersk’s contention, we are not persuaded that s.437(2A) requires
that there has been a notification time in respect of the enterprise agreement proposed
by the PABO applicant. As we have mentioned, the reference to ‘a proposed enterprise
agreement’ in s.437(1) refers relevantly to the enterprise agreement proposed by the
applicant at the time the PABO application is made. Subsection 437(2A) provides that
a PABO application cannot be made ‘unless there has been a notification time in
relation to the proposed enterprise agreement’ (emphasis added). The subsection does
not require there to have been a notification time for the particular agreement proposed
by the PABO applicant. It is sufficient that there has been a notification time ‘in
relation to’ the agreement proposed by the PABO applicant.
[25] The expression ‘in relation to’ is one ‘of broad import’. In O’Grady v Northern
Queensland Co Ltd McHugh J observed that the expression ‘requires no more than a
relationship, whether direct or indirect, between two subject matters’. Context is
important in determining the connection to which a statutory provision is referring.
In Travelex Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, French CJ and Hayne J said ((2010) 241
CLR 510 at [25]):
‘It may readily be accepted that ‘in relation to’ is a phrase that can be used in a
variety of contexts, in which the degree of connection that must be shown
between the two subject matters joined by the expression may differ. It may
also be accepted that ‘the subject matter of the enquiry, the legislative history,
and the facts of the case’ are all matters that will bear upon the judgment of
what relationship must be shown in order to conclude that there is a supply ‘in
relation to’ rights [citations omitted].’
[26] The legislative purpose in the enactment of s.437(2A) is to ensure that
protected industrial action cannot be taken until after bargaining has commenced – that
is, after the time when the employer agrees to bargain, or initiates bargaining (or one
of the other circumstances constituting the ‘notification time’ within the meaning of
s.173(2)). To import into s.437(2A) a requirement that the ‘notification time’ must be
in respect of the agreement proposed by the PABO applicant would mean (relevantly
in the context of the present matter) that the employer must have agreed to bargain or
[2016] FWC 6323
8
have initiated bargaining for a proposed enterprise agreement with precisely the same
scope as that sought by the PABO applicant. Such a construction would have the
effect of removing scope from the matters in bargaining in support of which
employees can engage in protected industrial action. This would be the case because a
bargaining representative would only be able to apply for a PABO in relation to a
proposed enterprise agreement containing the scope proposed by, or agreed with, the
employer.
[27] A consequence of the construction proposed by Maersk is that by not agreeing
on the scope of the proposed enterprise agreement, an employer would be able to
prevent employees from engaging in protected industrial action unless they have first
obtained a majority support determination, scope order or low paid authorisation. It
seems to us that such a consequence is inimical to the scheme of the FW Act. The
scope of a proposed enterprise agreement can itself be the subject of bargaining and
bargaining within the meaning of the FW Act may have commenced even though the
parties disagree about the scope of the proposed enterprise agreement. As the Full
Bench observed in Stuartholme School v The Corporation of the Trustees of the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane,:
‘[t]he terms of [s237] unambiguously suggest that bargaining may have
commenced under the Fair Work Act even though the parties to the bargaining
process are in disagreement about the scope of the proposed agreement’.
[28] Importantly, in the absence of a scope order, the parties to a proposed
enterprise agreement are entitled to continue to bargain over the scope of the
agreement until that matter is settled through bargaining. If there is a notification time
in relation to the proposed agreement, protected industrial action in support of a claim
for a particular scope may be taken.
[29] The construction we have adopted is entirely consistent with the legislative
note to s.437(2A). As set out earlier, the Note states:
‘For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot
be taken until bargaining has commenced including where the scope of the
proposed enterprise agreement is the only matter in dispute.’ (emphasis added)
[30] The Note clearly contemplates that the scope of a proposed enterprise
agreement may be the subject of bargaining and that protected industrial action may be
taken in support of a claim for a particular scope.
[endnotes omitted]
[31] What is clear from the decision in Maersk is that:
1. A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the
proposed enterprise agreement can apply for a PABO (at [17]);
[2016] FWC 6323
9
2. The ‘proposed enterprise agreement’ is the agreement the bargaining
representative applying for the PABO is proposing at the time the application
for the PABO is made (at [15]);
3. There must be a ‘notification time’ for the proposed enterprise agreement (at
[18]);
4. The ‘notification time’ is the time the employer agrees to bargain or initiates
bargaining or one of the other circumstances in s.173(2) of the Act is met (at
[26]);
5. The ‘notification time’ does not require that there be a notification time for the
particular agreement proposed by the PABO applicant (at [24]);
6. It is sufficient that there be a notification time ‘in relation’ to the agreement
proposed by the PABO applicant (at [24]);
7. Context, including legislative context, is important in determining if the
notification time is ‘in relation’ to the proposed enterprise agreement (at [25]).
[32] I do not accept, as was put by Swinburne, that Maersk is only relevant when the
matters in dispute relate to the scope of the agreement. Its reliance on the phrase ‘relevantly in
the context of the present matter’ (at [26]) to make good this proposition is misplaced. It
seems that the Full Bench was indicating that it was not just where a dispute was over scope
that its reasoning might have application. Rather, it was pointing out that scope was the matter
in dispute in that case. It’s comment cannot be taken to indicate some very limited application
of the decision.
Has Swinburne agreed to bargain with the NTEU?
[33] I am satisfied that Swinburne has agreed to bargain with the NTEU. This much is clear
from its letter of 14 April 2016. That it agreed to bargain with the NTEU with respect to a
proposed MEA (that is, the agreement it seeks) and not the NTEU proposed enterprise
agreement as set out in the NTEU log of claims is not the relevant consideration.
[34] The NTEU has engaged in the negotiations for the proposed MEA. This does not
mean and cannot be taken to mean that it has agreed with Swinburne as to the proposed
agreement with respect to employees at Swinburne. The decision to enter into bargaining
involves the parties coming together with different agendas to see if agreement can be
reached. That both come to the table is not evidence that either agrees with anything the other
has put to be negotiated. It is just that they have agreed to negotiate.
[35] For the NTEU not to participate in bargaining in relation to the proposed MEA would
mean that it would walk away from:
(a) bargaining for an agreement that may cover members in places other than
Swinburne where it is content for there to be an MEA; and
[2016] FWC 6323
10
(b) an inability to try and influence Swinburne with respect to a final enterprise
agreement.
[36] That the NTEU is at the bargaining table cannot be held against it.
[37] The letter sent by Swinburne to the NTEU on 14 April 2016 indicates that it has
agreed to bargain with the NTEU.
Has there been a ‘notification time’
[38] I am satisfied that Swinburne has provided notice of its agreement to bargain
(s.173(2)(a)).
[39] I accept that its notice of agreement to bargain specifies that its proposed enterprise
agreement is a multi-enterprise agreement, that is it is off a different scope to that sought by
the NTEU in its log of claims.
[40] I accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in Maersk that:
[26] … To import into s.437(2A) a requirement that the ‘notification time’ must be
in respect of the agreement proposed by the PABO applicant would mean (relevantly
in the context of the present matter) that the employer must have agreed to bargain or
have initiated bargaining for a proposed enterprise agreement with precisely the same
scope as that sought by the PABO applicant. Such a construction would have the
effect of removing scope from the matters in bargaining in support of which
employees can engage in protected industrial action.3
[41] In the context of the matter before me, to import into s.437(2A) a requirement that the
‘notification time’ must be in respect of the type of agreement as proposed by the NTEU
would mean that the Swinburne must have agreed to bargain for a proposed enterprise
agreement with the same scope as that sought by the NTEU.
[42] I am satisfied that there has been a ‘notification time’ by Swinburne and that its
notification relates to a proposed MEA. Subject to the matter below, that Swinburne seeks an
MEA does not automatically stop the NTEU making its application. There is no requirement
that the agreement that Swinburne proposed must be the same as the proposed enterprise
agreement of the NTEU.
Is the notification time ‘in relation’ to the NTEU proposed enterprise agreement?
[43] The proposed enterprise agreement referred to in s.437 is ‘the agreement the
bargaining representative applying for an order under s. 447 is proposing at the time the
application for a protected action ballot order is made.’4 In this case, it is a single enterprise
agreement proposed by the NTEU. Any submission to the contrary must be rejected. It is
accepted that the ‘proposed enterprise agreement’ in s.437 cannot be a proposed MEA and in
this case it is not.
[2016] FWC 6323
11
[44] The question is whether there has been a notification time ‘in relation to’ the NTEU
proposed enterprise agreement. This requires a determination of whether the notification by
Swinburne that it agrees to bargain for an MEA can be seen to be ‘in relation to’ to the single
enterprise agreement proposed by the NTEU.
[45] The Act contemplates the making of an enterprise agreement that might be a single-
enterprise agreement (s.172(2)), a multi-enterprise agreement (s.172(3)) or a greenfields
agreement (s.172(4)).
[46] A multi-enterprise agreement can be made where two or more employers agree to
make such an agreement with their employees who are employed at the time the agreement is
made.
[47] Swinburne put, and I agree, that a multi-enterprise agreement is a voluntary process
entered into by employers. A multi-enterprise agreement cannot be forced upon employers.
This is evident by the provisions of the Act which specify that neither a majority support
determination nor a scope order can be issued for one. In addition, good faith bargaining
orders cannot be issued (unless a low-paid authorisation exists which is not the case in this
matter) and protected industrial action cannot be taken in support of an MEA. In this respect,
the decision to enter into bargaining for an MEA is in the hands of the employer. I accept that
all of these matters differentiate a MEA from a single enterprise agreement.
[48] I would observe that if it was the intention that industrial action could not be taken or
applied for in circumstances where the employer had chosen to do seek an MEA, the Act
would have said so. It does not. The Act cannot be read to impose any general prohibition on
a bargaining representative making an application for a PABO even where the employer
wishes to enter into a proposed MEA. The prohibitions in relation to applying for a PABO or
taking industrial action are where these are directed at the proposed MEA that is, in support of
or opposed to content of the proposed MEA or directed at the participants in the bargaining
for the proposed MEA to force them to do something in that process. This is not the
circumstance before the Commission.
[49] I am not convinced that the things that distinguish a multi-enterprise agreement from a
single enterprise agreement are enough to say that the notification in relation to the MEA is
not ‘in relation’ to the NTEU proposed enterprise agreement.
[50] Swinburne wishes to enter into an agreement. They have made this clear. Their
proposal is that it be done with a number of other employers. The coverage of its proposed
agreement is broader than the NTEU’s preference, but its notification (as opposed to other
employers who may also participate in the MEA) is only in relation to an enterprise
agreement that will cover a group of its employees. These employees are the same ones (or
close to) as those who would be covered by the NTEU proposed agreement. For this reason, I
am satisfied that Swinburne’s notification is in relation to the agreement proposed by the
NTEU. Regardless of its preference, Swinburne has no control over who else will be covered
by the proposed MEA. Its ‘notification time’ is in relation to its employees, the same ones the
NTEU says will be covered by its proposed enterprise agreement, it is just that Swinburne
wish to engage with other employers as well.
[2016] FWC 6323
12
[51] A distraction of discussion as to the type of agreement preferred by Swinburne (a
multi-enterprise agreement compared to a single enterprise agreement) does not alter my
decision or reasons.
[52] It seems to me that the issue between Swinburne and the NTEU is, at its basic level,
one of scope. Having decided, and having a preference, to be part of a proposed MEA does
not mean that Swinburne is required by law to stay that course. Of course, having decided as I
have does not stop Swinburne remaining in the proposed MEA and allowing its employees to
decide if they wish to accept the terms of the proposed MEA or not. Whatever its employees
decide will not have any negative consequences on others bargaining for the proposed MEA.
[53] The Full Bench in Maersk said that:
[37] … The purpose of s.437(2A) is to prevent employees engaging in protected
industrial action to pressure an employer to agree to bargain. But once an employer
has agreed to bargain, or has initiated bargaining for a proposed enterprise agreement,
employees may engage in protected industrial action to support their claims in relation
to their proposed enterprise agreement (including a claim about the scope of such an
agreement). [endnote omitted]
[emphasis added]
[54] The NTEU does not seek to force Swinburne to bargain, Swinburne has already agreed
to do that. It seeks to engage with Swinburne as to scope (and perhaps other matters). The Act
allows it to do so.
[55] For all of these reasons, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.437(2) have been met.
That is, there has been a notification time in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.
Conclusion
[56] I am satisfied that the NTEU has made an application for a protected action ballot
order in accordance with s.437 of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that the NTEU has been and
is genuinely trying to seek agreement with Swinburne with respect to the employees to be
balloted.
[57] I shall therefore issue the order5 as sought.
COMMISSIONER
THE FAIR WORK MMISSION THE SEAL
[2016] FWC 6323
13
Appearances:
J. Cullinan for the National Tertiary Education Industry Union.
P. O’Grady for Swinburne University of Technology.
Hearing details:
2016.
Melbourne:
September 2.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR585029
Endnotes:
1 AE416811.
2 [2016] FWCFB 1894.
3 Ibid, at [26].
4 See Mermaid Marine Vessel Operations Pty Ltd v The Maritime Union of Australia cited in Maersk, at [13].
5 PR585040.