DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

Frankston City Council

(B2017/346)

Local government administration
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 4 MAY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Frankston City Council.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Frankston City Council (the Respondent). The application was made on 28 April 2017.

[2] The Respondent has advised in correspondence that it does not oppose the making of the order. I have therefore made this decision on the basis of the material filed by the ASU.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The ASU has provided a signed statutory declaration addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order 1 must be made.

COMMISSIONER

1 PR592676.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the "Union") sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission (the "Commission") that a ballot of employees of Frankston City Council (the "Council") to determine whether the employees wished to take protected action was validly conducted. The Union argued that the ballot was not valid because it was conducted without providing the employees with information regarding the potential consequences of the proposed action. The Council contended that the Union had not demonstrated that the ballot was invalid and that the Union's claims should be dismissed. The matter was heard by the Commission, which was required to determine the validity of the ballot and the appropriate remedy, if any, for the alleged invalidity. The Commission held that the Union had not demonstrated that the ballot was invalid because it was conducted without providing the employees with information regarding the potential consequences of the proposed action. The Commission found that the ballot notice provided to the employees contained a sufficient description of the proposed action, including the nature, duration, and likely impact of the action, and that the employees were therefore provided with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The Commission also found that the Union had not demonstrated that the ballot was unfair or unreasonable, and that the ballot was therefore valid. The Commission dismissed the Union's application. The Commission did not make any orders, as the Union's application had been dismissed.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Frankston City Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established