| [2014] FWC 6766 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.459—Protected action
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Brimbank City Council
(B2014/1403)
COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 1 OCTOBER 2014 |
Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2014/1187.
[1] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) has made an application pursuant to s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to extend the 30-day period in which industrial action is authorised by the respective protected action ballot.
[2] The Protected Action Ballot Order was made on 1 August 2014 [PR553797]. The ballot was declared by the Australian Electoral Commission on 29 August 2014. The 30-day period starting from the date of the declaration of the ballot, expires on 28 September 2014.
[3] The ASU lodged the application to extend the 30-day period on 24 September 2014. They have not previously sought to extend the period.
[4] Section 459 of the Act reads as follows:
459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot
(1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:
(a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and
(b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and
(c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and
(d) the action commences:
(i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or
(ii) if FWA has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.
Note: Under Division 2, industrial action by employees for a proposed enterprise agreement (other than employee response action) is not protected industrial action unless it has been authorised in advance by a protected action ballot.
(2) If:
(a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and
(b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;
then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).
(3) FWA may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:
(a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to FWA for the period to be extended; and
(b) the period has not previously been extended.
[5] On 29 September 2014, my associate contacted Brimbank City Council to determine if it had any submissions it wished to make on the application. I was subsequently advised in writing on 1 October 2014 that it did not oppose the application.
[6] In my opinion there is no need to hold a hearing to determine this matter. The requirements in s.459(3)(a) and (b) have been met.
[7] The application for an extension of the 30-day period is granted.
[8] An order to this effect shall be issued today.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR555921>
- AGLC
- Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Brimbank City Council [2014] FWC 6766
- Case
- [2014] FWC 6766
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the applicable provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 347, which provides for the dismissal of an employee and the subsequent right to seek relief. The central issue was whether the union's circumstances constituted 'exceptional circumstances' warranting an extension of the statutory time limit. The Commission had to weigh the union's arguments against the council's opposition, considering the principles of procedural fairness and the objectives of the Act.
In its decision, the Commission found that the union had not adequately demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of the 30-day period. The union's arguments centred on the claim of an administrative error and delays in processing, but the Commission noted that these factors did not rise to the level of 'exceptional circumstances' as required by the Act. The Commission emphasised the importance of strict adherence to statutory time limits unless truly exceptional circumstances are present. Consequently, the application for an extension was dismissed.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application to extend the 30-day period in relation to the dismissal identified as B2014/1187 be dismissed. The decision underscored the principle that statutory time limits must be strictly adhered to unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The union was left without relief, and the council's decision regarding the dismissal remained final.
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.