DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Hobart City Council
(B2020/634)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hobart City 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 Hobart City Council (Respondent).

[2] On 14 October 2020, 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 K Tantari 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 PR723529.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

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 that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Hobart City Council (the Council) was unlawful. The Union further sought an injunction to restrain the Council from proceeding with the ballot. The Union contended that the Council had failed to comply with a number of statutory requirements, including that the ballot be conducted by the Tasmanian Government's Office of Industrial Relations (the Office) and that a copy of the proposed ballot paper be provided to the Council and the Union at least 14 days prior to the ballot. The Union submitted that the ballot be declared unlawful and that an injunction be issued to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The Council maintained that the ballot complied with the statutory requirements, including the requirement that a copy of the proposed ballot paper be provided to the Council and the Union at least 14 days prior to the ballot. The Council submitted that the Union had not established that it was appropriate to grant an injunction and that the Union had not demonstrated that there was a substantial likelihood that the ballot would be unlawful.

The Court found that the Union had not established that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The Court held that the Union had not demonstrated that the ballot did not comply with the requirement that a copy of the proposed ballot paper be provided to the Council and the Union at least 14 days prior to the ballot. The Court further found that the Union had not demonstrated that it was appropriate to grant an injunction. The Court held that the Union had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the ballot would be unlawful. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Union's application for a declaration and injunction.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Hobart 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