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

[2023] FWC 506

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

City of Maribyrnong

(B2023/182)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Maribyrnong

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 the City of Maribyrnong (Respondent).

On 1 March 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Tyrell William Lockwood 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 PR751287.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) sought an order from the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot in relation to certain employees of the City of Maribyrnong (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the terms of a proposed agreement that the union wished to ballot its members about, and the city council did not object to the application. The matter was determined by the Deputy President without a hearing, as the council did not contest the union's application.

The key legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the employer and if the requirements for a protected action ballot were met. The union provided a declaration from Tyrell William Lockwood, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and affirmed that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The Deputy President was satisfied that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled.

Based on the material presented, the Deputy President determined that the union had met the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order allowing the union to proceed with the ballot. This decision was made without a hearing, as the employer did not object to the union's application. A separate order was issued in PR751287. The Deputy President's decision was made on the basis of the union's declaration and the lack of objection from the employer, and no further hearings were deemed necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established