The Industrial Action Taken by SU, Essay Example

Section 408 and 409 stipulate the protected industrial action and employee claim action (Section 408 and 409 FWA). In this case, the protected action ballot is applicable where the industrial action was authorized through the protected action ballot (Acton, 2011). In such case, the results of a protected action ballot, as declared by the chosen agent to undertake the ballot process, will authorize specific industrial action for the analyzed case. However, anyone, be it an organization or an individual who acts in good faith on the declared results can engage in the industrial action. This can take two forms of results; (a) it later becomes clear that industrial action was not authorised by the ballot.  (b) The decision to make the protected action ballot order is quashed or varied on appeal or review by the FWC after the industrial action is organised or engaged (Layton, Smith & Stewart, 2013). At the same time, no action lies against the individual or organization, whether underwritten or unwritten law stated in any State or within a Territory. This relates to the industrial action undertaken not unless it relates to personal injury. The act was intentional or was carried out recklessly by the person or was unlawful taking or keeping someone’s property.

Based on the study, the underlying situation or conditions placed by DF placed the landowners under a contradictory position. In the first instance, the landowners were under the guidance of the existing modern award as stated in the Fair Work Act of 2009. The terms stated above indicate that they were binding and applicable to all landowners and shearers (Australia, 2010). Bringing new terms to the shearing activity for the landowners means what to DF and the landowners? Let us consider what the Fair Work Act of 2009 stipulates regarding the modern awards to explain the implication of going against it. According to the Fair Work Act of 2009, SU is not qualified to be a registered organization or association because DF remains to be the president of SU but does not legally have the mandate to change the applying conditions and stipulated laws according to the Act (Gollan, 2009). The SU is not an employee association but is an institution. This implies that an activity undertaken by DF on behalf of the institution to change the modern award is illegal. The appropriate industrial action is under the Fair Work act and what is stipulated in the protected action ballot is just relevant to SU only.

On the contrary to the stipulated terms in the Fair Work Act of 2009 means that an individual is ready to bear the consequences of their action. For example, the SU award would only apply to parties who adhere to the laws and regulations of the corporation, failure to which they are guided by the modern award as stated in the Fair Work Act of 2009 (Layton, Smith & Stewart, 2013). In this case, it is implicit that industrial action undertaken by SU was not under the PAB but FAW. As argued in the first question, SU registration would be rendered void or be canceled as stipulated in part three-section a. The action will be subject to ballot action, and at least 50% of the employees ought to be included in the voting process, and 50% of valid cotes are verified. This part specifies that cancellation can be made if the person or organization deems that the association or organization has breached the modern award or the order of enterprise agreement.

Discussion as to whether CJ can bring an action against SU or DF for injuries suffered

JS has the potential to bring an action against SU because DF works in the capacity of the institution. Under legal conditions, if an employee cause injury to a third party in the course of undertaking their duties, the person and the institution will be held liable severally and individually (Lewis, 2019). In this case, DF was working as the SU president, and in any case, he caused harm to JS. Then JS has a right to be compensated for injuries caused by the president. The liability will be brought against SU for vicarious liability grounds of its employees.

Conclusion

In this case, Section 408 (protected industrial action) and Section 409 (employee claim action) are applicable to determine whether PB authorized the industrial activity undertaken by SU.