Section 266 — Fair Work Act 2009: When the FWC must make an industrial action related workplace determination
Text of the provision Official document
Industrial action related workplace determination (1) If: (a) a termination of industrial action instrument has been made in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement; and (b) the post-industrial action negotiating period ends; and (c) the bargaining representatives for the agreement have not settled all of the matters that were at issue during bargaining for the agreement; the FWC must make a determination (an industrial action related workplace determination) as quickly as possible after the end of that period. Note: The FWC must be constituted by a Full Bench to make an industrial action related workplace determination (see subsection 616(4)). Termination of industrial action instrument (2) A termination of industrial action instrument in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement is: (a) an order under section 423 or 424 terminating protected industrial action for the agreement; or (b) a declaration under section 431 terminating protected industrial action for the agreement. Post-industrial action negotiating period (3) The post-industrial action negotiating period is the period that: (a) starts on the day on which the termination of industrial action instrument is made; and (b) ends: (i) 21 days after that day; or (ii) if the FWC extends that period under subsection (4)—42 days after that day. (4) The FWC must extend the period referred to in subparagraph (3)(b)(i) if: (a) all of the bargaining representatives for the agreement jointly apply to the FWC for the extension within 21 days after the termination of industrial action instrument was made; and (b) those bargaining representatives have not settled all of the matters that were at issue during bargaining for the agreement.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →