DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
City of Rockingham
(B2021/776)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Rockingham

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

[2] On 13 September 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Paolo Lawrence Cecchini of the Applicant declared on 10 September 2021, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR734005.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v City of Rockingham, the dispute centred around the city council's refusal to allow a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected action. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), an independent statutory body responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia. The union, representing the employees, sought to organise a protected action ballot to gauge support for potential industrial action, including a strike, due to ongoing disputes over employment conditions.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and whether the union had satisfied the necessary prerequisites for holding a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court had to determine if the union had provided the requisite notice to the employer and if the ballot related to an industrial dispute. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the City of Rockingham had valid grounds to refuse the ballot, such as if it believed the ballot was not related to an existing industrial dispute or if it posed a risk to the city's ability to deliver essential services.

The FWC examined the evidence and submissions from both parties before concluding that the union had adequately notified the employer and that the ballot pertained to an ongoing industrial dispute. The commission found that the union had demonstrated a genuine dispute regarding employment conditions and that the ballot was a reasonable step in the process of resolving that dispute. The FWC rejected the City of Rockingham's argument that the ballot posed a risk to essential services, finding that the union had taken steps to mitigate any potential disruptions. Consequently, the commission ordered the City of Rockingham to permit the union to conduct the ballot.

The final orders included a mandate for the City of Rockingham to facilitate the union's proposed ballot, ensuring that all employees received the necessary information and could participate in the ballot process. The commission also directed that any communication regarding the ballot must be neutral and not interfere with the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established