DECISION

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

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Hobsons Bay City Council
(B2019/1173)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 OCTOBER 2019

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

[2] On 11 October 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms E Shepherd 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 PR713265.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union took Hobsons Bay City Council to the Fair Work Commission, arguing that the council's decision to cancel a proposed ballot of protected action by employees was unlawful. The dispute arose from the council's contention that the ballot notice did not comply with the applicable industrial instruments, and thus, the ballot could not proceed. The Union contested this, asserting that the ballot was valid and should have been allowed to proceed.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the council's decision to cancel the ballot was justified. This involved determining whether the ballot notice was in compliance with the relevant industrial instruments and whether there were any valid grounds for the council to reject the ballot. Additionally, the commission had to consider the implications of the council's actions on the employees' rights to organise and take protected industrial action.

In its decision, the commission found that the council had erred in rejecting the ballot notice, as it was compliant with the necessary industrial instruments. The commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees' rights to organise and take protected action are upheld, and that decisions to cancel ballots must be based on proper grounds. Consequently, the commission ruled that the council's decision was unlawful and ordered the council to allow the ballot to proceed. The commission also made orders regarding costs and other procedural matters, ensuring that the council's actions were properly addressed.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Hobsons Bay 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