DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
City of Greater Dandenong
(B2015/1429)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Greater Dandenong.

[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 City of Greater Dandenong (the Respondent). The application was made on 1 October 2015.

[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.

[6] 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 (AMACSU) and the City of Greater Dandenong (the City) found themselves in dispute before the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was the City's refusal to allow the union to conduct a protected action ballot of its employees. The union sought to organise a ballot to potentially take industrial action, while the City opposed the ballot on various grounds, including that it would cause undue disruption to the City's operations.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the City's refusal to permit the ballot was justified under the Act, particularly focusing on the provisions that allow for the protection of the interests of employees and the public, and the circumstances under which such ballots may be conducted. The Commission needed to balance the union's right to organise and the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action against the City's obligations to maintain essential services and the public's interest in uninterrupted service delivery.

The Fair Work Commission found that the City's refusal to allow the ballot was not justified. The Commission considered the potential impact on the City's operations and the public interest, but ultimately ruled that the union's right to conduct a ballot outweighed these concerns. The City's arguments that the ballot would cause undue disruption and that alternative methods of communication were available did not sufficiently justify the refusal. The Commission ordered the City to allow the union to conduct the ballot, ensuring that the employees' rights were protected and that the process was conducted in a manner that minimised disruption.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v City of Greater Dandenong

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established