DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Derwent Valley Council
(B2021/626)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Derwent Valley Council.

[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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Derwent Valley Council (Respondent).

[2] On 5 August 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Ms Samantha Batchelor 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR732531.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the Union) sought an order from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to allow a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of the Derwent Valley Council (the Council). The Council opposed the ballot. The dispute was heard by the Commission, which was required to determine whether the proposed ballot was a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Union claimed that the proposed ballot was a protected action, as it related to a matter of adverse action against its members, while the Council argued that the ballot was not a protected action because it was not related to adverse action. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was not a protected action because it did not relate to adverse action against the Union's members. The Commission determined that the ballot was not related to any adverse action taken by the Council against its employees and therefore did not fall within the definition of protected action. The Commission further found that the ballot was not related to any dispute between the Union and the Council regarding the terms and conditions of employment of the Council's employees. The Commission rejected the Union's application for an order allowing the proposed ballot. The Commission held that the proposed ballot was not a protected action and therefore could not be conducted under the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the Union's application for an order was not supported by the evidence and that the proposed ballot did not relate to any adverse action taken by the Council against its employees. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was not a protected action and therefore could not be conducted under the Fair Work Act. The Commission dismissed the Union's application for an order allowing the proposed ballot.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Derwent Valley Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established