DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Derwent Valley Council
(B2021/432)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 17 JUNE 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 17 June 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 PR730828.

DEPUTY 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 Derwent Valley Council, the applicant, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, sought an order for the Derwent Valley Council to hold a ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute involved the union's claim that the council had failed to provide the necessary information for a protected action ballot as stipulated under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the Derwent Valley Council had complied with the requirements for holding a protected action ballot and if the union had fulfilled the necessary preconditions for such a ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the union had provided adequate information about the protected action to the council and whether the council had correctly responded to the union's request. Additionally, the Commission examined the procedural aspects of the union's application and the council's response to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative framework.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient information regarding the proposed protected action to the council. The Commission held that the union's application did not meet the statutory requirements as it lacked detail and specificity about the nature of the proposed protected action. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application, ruling that the council was not obligated to hold a ballot under the circumstances presented. The Commission concluded that the union had not established a proper basis for the ballot as per the Fair Work Act.

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