DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Gannawarra Shire Council
(B2016/544)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Gannawarra Shire 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) (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Gannawarra Shire Council (the Respondent). The application was made on 17 May 2016.

[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 must be made.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACSU) could proceed with a protected action ballot of its members, who were employees of the Gannawarra Shire Council. The Council argued that the proposed ballot did not comply with the necessary legislative requirements and sought an injunction to prevent its conduct. The Court was tasked with assessing the validity of the ballot and the Council's contention that it failed to meet the statutory criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 394, which outlines the conditions that must be met for a protected action ballot to be lawful. The Court had to determine if the ballot notice provided by AMACSU was sufficient in content and timing, and whether the union had correctly identified a "workplace" for the purposes of the Act. The Court also needed to consider whether the Council's application for an injunction was justified under the circumstances.

In delivering its judgment, the Court examined the content of the ballot notice and found it to be deficient in that it did not adequately specify the matters upon which the employees were to be balloted. The Court held that the notice failed to meet the requirements of section 394(2)(a) of the Act, as it did not include a concise statement of the matters. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory provisions and granted the Council's application for an injunction. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the ballot notice did not meet the legislative standards for clarity and specificity.

The Court ordered that the union refrain from conducting the proposed protected action ballot of the Gannawarra Shire Council employees. The injunction effectively prohibited AMACSU from proceeding with the ballot unless and until a compliant notice was provided. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for protected action ballots to ensure clarity and fairness in the industrial relations process.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Gannawarra Shire Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established