DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Lendlease Services Pty Limited
(B2018/508)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 28 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lendlease Services Pty Limited.

[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 Lendlease Services Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 28 June 2018, 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 Mr M Price 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 PR608562.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union versus Lendlease Services Pty Limited, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning a proposed industrial action ballot by the employees of Lendlease Services Pty Limited. The Union, acting on behalf of the employees, sought approval for a protected action ballot to gauge employee sentiment towards potential industrial action, including strikes and lockouts. Lendlease Services Pty Limited opposed the ballot, arguing it was premature and not in the best interest of the company or the employees.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union's proposed industrial action ballot met the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the ballot was appropriate and necessary, taking into account the dispute's nature, the employees' interests, and the potential impact on the employer. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether there were any alternative dispute resolution methods that should be pursued before resorting to a ballot.

The Commission carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It concluded that the Union's proposed ballot was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. The Commission found that the dispute was genuine, the employees had legitimate concerns, and alternative dispute resolution avenues had not been exhausted. The potential benefits of the industrial action, including resolving the dispute and achieving a fair outcome for the employees, outweighed any potential harm to the employer. Consequently, the Commission approved the Union's application for a protected action ballot.

The Commission's decision provided clarity on the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot and reinforced the importance of balancing the rights of employees to take industrial action with the need to protect the interests of employers. The Commission's ruling allowed the Union to proceed with the ballot, providing employees with the opportunity to express their views on potential industrial action.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Lendlease Services Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established