Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Hepburn Shire Council Summary

[2022] FWC 337

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Hepburn Shire Council

(B2022/83)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 17 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hepburn Shire Council

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 Hepburn Shire Council (Respondent).

On 17 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Emma Bagg 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738462.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and Hepburn Shire Council. The union sought to organise a protected action ballot of council employees. The council opposed the ballot on the basis that the proposed action involved a protected industrial action dispute in relation to existing employees, and the union had not provided sufficient information to support the ballot. The union argued that the council's opposition was unjustified and that the ballot should proceed. The Commission was required to determine whether the union had provided sufficient information to support the proposed ballot, and whether the council's opposition was justified.

The Commission found that the union had provided sufficient information to support the proposed ballot, and that the council's opposition was unjustified. The Commission noted that the union had provided a detailed description of the proposed action, the reasons for the proposed action, and the likely impact of the proposed action on the council and its employees. The Commission also found that the council's opposition was based on a misunderstanding of the legal requirements for a protected action ballot, and that the council had not provided any evidence to support its opposition. The Commission concluded that the union had met the legal requirements for a protected action ballot, and that the ballot should proceed.

The Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hepburn Shire Council should proceed as proposed by the union. The Commission also ordered that the council provide the union with any necessary information to facilitate the ballot, and that the council not take any action to prevent or interfere with the ballot. The Commission's decision provides guidance to employers and unions on the legal requirements for a protected action ballot, and the importance of providing sufficient information to support the ballot. The decision also highlights the need for employers to carefully consider their opposition to a proposed ballot, and to ensure that their opposition is based on a proper understanding of the legal requirements.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established