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

[2018] FWC 2085

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

City of Greater Geelong

(B2018/242)

Vice President Catanzariti

DARWIN, 11 APRIL 2018

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

This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of City of Greater Geelong (Respondent).

On 11 April 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Raymond William King of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An order has been separately issued in PR601924.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the "Union") brought proceedings against the City of Greater Geelong (the "Council") in the Fair Work Commission. The Union sought an order that the Council cease and desist from certain actions which it claimed were intended to frustrate the Union's ability to conduct a proposed protected action ballot of the Council's employees. The Union argued that the Council had taken steps to interfere with the ballot in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Council denied the allegations, asserting that it had acted in accordance with the law and had not engaged in any conduct intended to frustrate the Union's ballot activities.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the Council's actions constituted an interference with the Union's right to conduct a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the Council's communication to employees, which included information about the potential financial implications of a strike, amounted to an improper influence on the ballot process. The Commission also considered whether the Council's decision to temporarily relocate some employees to other locations during the ballot period was an attempt to hinder the Union's efforts.

The Commission found that the Council's communications to employees did not constitute an improper interference with the ballot process. While the information provided could have influenced some employees, it did not amount to an attempt to frustrate the Union's ability to conduct the ballot. However, the Commission did find that the Council's decision to temporarily relocate employees was an attempt to interfere with the ballot. This action was deemed to be an undue hindrance to the Union's efforts to conduct the ballot, in breach of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission ordered the Council to cease and desist from this conduct.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the City of Greater Geelong to cease and desist from the action of relocating employees during the ballot period. The Council was also directed to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the order. The Commission did not impose any further penalties or remedies, finding that the cease and desist order was sufficient to address the breach and to protect the Union's rights under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established