Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Brimbank City Council

[2014] FWC 5213

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Brimbank City Council
(B2014/1187)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Brimbank City Council.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Brimbank City Council (the Respondent). The application was made on 30 July 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised in correspondence that it does not oppose the making of the order. I have therefore made this decision on the basis of the material filed by the ASU.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The ASU has provided a signed statutory declaration addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the ASU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission that the Brimbank City Council was required to conduct a ballot of its employees regarding proposed industrial action. The Council contested the application on the grounds that the ballot was not necessary, as it had already been conducted, and the results were known. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal that heard the case.

The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the Council had lawfully conducted the proposed protected action ballot. The Union argued that the ballot did not comply with the necessary legal standards, while the Council contended that it had properly followed the required procedures. The Commission had to determine whether the ballot met the legal requirements and whether it was necessary to conduct another one.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and the relevant legal framework, including the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations. It found that the Council had not correctly conducted the ballot, as it failed to provide the necessary information to the employees and did not give them an opportunity to vote. The Commission also determined that it was necessary to conduct another ballot to ensure that the employees had a proper opportunity to express their views on the proposed industrial action. Therefore, the Commission granted the Union's application and ordered the Council to conduct a new ballot in accordance with the relevant legal requirements.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Brimbank City Council conduct a new ballot of its employees regarding the proposed industrial action. The ballot had to comply with the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations, and the Council had to provide the employees with the necessary information and an opportunity to vote. The Commission also ordered the Council to pay the Union's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established