| [2022] FWC 497 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v
Brimbank City Council
(B2022/162)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Brimbank City Council.
This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Brimbank City Council (the Respondent).
On 4 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Melissa Cadwell of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
An order has been separately issued in PR739065.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739064>
- AGLC
- Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Brimbank City Council [2022] FWC 497
- Case
- [2022] FWC 497
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue the court had to decide was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The material before the court included a declaration from Ms Melissa Cadwell of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent.
The Fair Work Commission was satisfied that the requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. It found that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. Therefore, the court decided to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. An order was separately issued in PR739065.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.