DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Hume City Council
(B2021/922)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

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

[2] On 29 September 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 Sean McCourt 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 PR734412.

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 a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hume City Council (the "Council") was not a "protected action" within the meaning of section 38 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (Vic). The Union also sought an injunction preventing the Council from proceeding with the ballot. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Union argued that the ballot was not a protected action because it was not "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The Council argued that the ballot was a protected action because it was "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The court held that the ballot was a protected action because it was "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The court found that the Union's argument that the ballot was not a protected action because it was not "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" was incorrect. The court found that the ballot was a protected action because it was "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The court found that the ballot was a protected action because it was "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The court refused to grant the injunction sought by the Union. The court found that the Union had not established that it was likely to succeed in its claim that the ballot was not a protected action. The court found that the Union had not established that it was likely to succeed in its claim that the ballot was not a protected action. The court found that the Union had not established that it was likely to succeed in its claim that the ballot was not a protected action. The court declined to grant the injunction sought by the Union.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Hume 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