Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie

Case [2023] FWC 2005


[2023] FWC 2005

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie

(B2023/824)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 11 AUGUST 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie

  1. This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie (City of Bernie or Employer)

  1. On 11 August 2023, the Commission was advised that the City of Bernie, in effect, did not object to the Application, as amended.[1]

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Troy Baker on behalf of the ASU, setting out the steps taken by the ASU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the City of Bernie, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 22 September 2023.[2] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR765110.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives involved in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] The Respondent requested amendments be made to the Applicant’s responses to Question 2.3 of the F34 and Questions 1.2,

1.6, 1.9 and 2.1 of the F34B; those amendments were subsequently made by the Applicant on 11 August 2023.

[2] This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order, which is the period required by the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a ballot.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR765111>

Details
AGLC
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie [2023] FWC 2005
Case
[2023] FWC 2005
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to conduct a protected action ballot for certain employees of Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie (City of Burnie or Employer). The City of Burnie did not object to the application, leading to the matter being decided on the papers without a hearing. The ASU sought the ballot to propose a new enterprise agreement with the City of Burnie, having provided evidence of its efforts to reach an agreement through bargaining.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid and whether all the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met. The Commission reviewed the declaration from Mr. Troy Baker on behalf of the ASU, which outlined the union's negotiation efforts with the City of Burnie. Based on the provided materials, the Deputy President Hampton concluded that the notification time was valid and all necessary requirements were fulfilled.

The Deputy President determined that the Australian Electoral Commission would conduct the ballot and set the closing date for voting as 22 September 2023. This date also established the ballot period under section 448A(2) of the Act. The matter will be assigned to another Commission member for a compulsory conciliation conference, with orders requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives involved in the proposed enterprise agreement. Directions will also be issued to ensure that parties are prepared for meaningful negotiations.

This decision ensures the process for the proposed enterprise agreement proceeds, providing a structured timeline for negotiations and balloting. The parties are now required to attend the conciliation conference to continue discussions in good faith.

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.