Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

[2025] FWC 293

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

(B2025/201)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 4 FEBRUARY 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited T/A Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited trading as Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (Maurice Blackburn or Employer).

On 3 February 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application.

One of the original ballot questions in Clause 5 was deleted by the Commission as foreshadowed with the parties, following concerns being raised.

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 Marian McKeown, National Industrial Officer, setting out the steps taken by the ASU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Maurice Blackburn, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd (Fair Vote). Fair Vote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 18 February 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

An Order has been separately issued in PR783922.

This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] This is, in effect, 10 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought out in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) sought a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited trading as Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. The ASU applied for this under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Maurice Blackburn did not object to the application, and one of the original ballot questions was removed by the Commission due to raised concerns. The Commission decided to determine the matter without a hearing based on the documents submitted, including a declaration from Marian McKeown, National Industrial Officer, stating the ASU's efforts in bargaining with Maurice Blackburn.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had elapsed and whether all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The Commission considered the evidence provided by the ASU, confirming that all necessary steps had been taken to reach an agreement with Maurice Blackburn and that the notification period had indeed expired. The ballot would be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd, approved as an eligible agent under section 468A of the Act. The Commission set the closing date for voting as 18 February 2025, which also established the ballot period for s.448A(2) of the Act.

The Deputy President Hampton concluded that the requirements for the ballot order were met and issued an Order. The matter was assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A. This Member would issue an Order for the attendance of all bargaining representatives at the conference, with directions likely to ensure the parties were prepared for meaningful negotiations. The final orders were issued, and the case was set for further proceedings under PR783922 and PR783923.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established