Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Brotherhood of St Laurence Summary

[2014] FWC 3755

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Brotherhood of St Laurence
(B2014/848)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 5 JUNE 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Brotherhood of St Laurence.

[1] On 4 June 2014 the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of the Brotherhood of St Laurence (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, ASU, NUW and SDA Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Agreement) which passed its nominal expiry date on 30 March 2013.

[5] On 5 June 2014, Employer confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR551512] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Brotherhood of St Laurence, the dispute involved a proposed ballot of employees of the Brotherhood of St Laurence regarding protected action. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is the tribunal tasked with resolving such employment-related disputes in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Brotherhood of St Laurence argued that the ballot was not protected action because it involved a request for employees to take industrial action against the organisation, which was their employer. The Union contended that the ballot was legitimate and protected under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to determine the scope of protected action. It found that the proposed ballot did not qualify as protected action because it involved a request for employees to take action against their employer, which is not permitted under the Act. The Commission concluded that the ballot was unlawful and ordered that it should not proceed. The decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the established legal principles regarding the nature of protected industrial action.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot of employees of the Brotherhood of St Laurence be disallowed, as it did not constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. This ruling clarified the boundaries of what constitutes lawful protected action in the context of employment relations.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Brotherhood of St Laurence

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established