Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v City of Ballarat

[2013] FWC 9396

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
City of Ballarat
(B2013/1514)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of City of Ballarat.

[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 City of Ballarat (the Respondent). The application was made on 25 November 2013.

[2] The Respondent has advised in correspondence that it would not oppose the making of the order.

[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 statement addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

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

[6] 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

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACU) initiated legal proceedings against the City of Ballarat over a proposed ballot of its employees concerning protected action. The dispute centred on the council's decision to include certain provisions in the ballot paper, which AMACU argued were misleading and prejudicial to the employees' rights. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the conduct of ballots for protected industrial action. The key question was whether the ballot paper complied with the statutory requirements designed to ensure transparency and fairness. AMACU contended that the ballot paper contained misleading statements that would prejudice the employees' ability to make an informed decision.

The Court examined the statutory provisions and found that the City of Ballarat had included material on the ballot paper that was not strictly necessary for the employees to make an informed decision about protected action. The inclusion of certain details was deemed to be potentially misleading and prejudicial, thus contravening the legislative requirements. The Court ruled in favour of AMACU, stating that the ballot paper did not meet the standards set by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Court issued an order to compel the City of Ballarat to conduct a new ballot that complied with the statutory provisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established