DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Geelong Regional Library Corporation
(B2021/184)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Geelong Regional Library Corporation.

[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 Geelong Regional Library Corporation (Respondent).

[2] On 22 March 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 Mr Luke Cherry 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 PR728001.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union versus the Geelong Regional Library Corporation, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine the legality of a proposed protected action ballot conducted by the union on behalf of its members, who were employees of the Geelong Regional Library Corporation. The Corporation sought an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding, arguing that the ballot was not in accordance with the relevant industrial legislation and that it would cause significant harm to the Corporation's operations.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the ballot was lawful under the relevant industrial relations laws, and if the Corporation could demonstrate sufficient grounds for an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The court also needed to consider the potential harm to the Corporation's operations if the ballot were to proceed, as well as the potential impact on the employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action.

The court found that the proposed ballot was not in accordance with the relevant industrial legislation, as it did not provide sufficient information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision. The court also found that the Corporation had demonstrated sufficient grounds for an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding, as it was likely that the ballot would cause significant harm to the Corporation's operations. The court granted an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding, and ordered the union to provide further information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision. The court also ordered that the union pay the Corporation's costs of the proceeding.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Geelong Regional Library Corporation

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established