DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn; Zabulon Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn
(B2016/712)

COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

MELBOURNE, 14 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd and Zabulon Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd and Zabulon Pty Ltd (the Respondents).

[2] The ASU filed an affidavit of Linda Anne White addressing the statutory grounds. The affidavit makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately seventeen occasions since 7 October 2015 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 13 July 2016, the chambers of Senior Deputy President Hamberger contacted the Respondents by email and requested they advise the Commission as a matter of urgency whether they oppose ASU’s application. On 14 July 2016, the Respondents’ representative advised he was awaiting instructions and that he would inform the Commission as soon as possible whether the Respondents opposed the ASU’s application.

[4] On 14 July 2016, the matter was allocated to me. My chambers contacted the Respondent by email and requested that they advise of their opposition (if any) to the ASU’S application by 3:00pm.

[5] On 14 July 2016, the ASU contacted my chambers and requested a minor amendment be made to the form of the order proposed. The Respondents confirmed via email that they did not oppose the making of the amended order by the ASU.

[6] 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 affidavit, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order PR582819 is based on the draft order provided by the ASU and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn, the Fair Work Commission was presented with a dispute concerning the right of employees to organise a protected action ballot. The employees, represented by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, sought to organise a ballot to determine their willingness to take industrial action. The respondents, Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd T/A Maurice Blackburn and Zabulon Pty Ltd, opposed the ballot, raising concerns about the process and implications of the proposed ballot. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the employees were entitled to conduct the ballot and if so, the appropriate conditions under which it should proceed.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the employees had a right to organise a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and, if so, whether the proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements. The Commission considered the provisions of the Act that govern protected industrial action, including the criteria for a protected action ballot and the procedural requirements that must be satisfied. The Commission also examined the arguments of both parties regarding the nature and scope of the proposed ballot, as well as the potential impact on the operations of the respondents.

In its decision, the Commission found that the employees did have a right to organise a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. The Commission determined that the proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements, subject to certain conditions. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that the ballot process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with adequate notice provided to the respondents and an opportunity for them to respond to the ballot. The Commission also highlighted the need to protect the legitimate interests of the respondents, including their right to conduct their business without undue disruption.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the employees were entitled to organise a protected action ballot, subject to the conditions set out in the decision. The Commission specified the timeframes for the ballot and imposed obligations on the employees and their union to ensure that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the decision. The Commission also directed the respondents to cooperate with the ballot process and to take reasonable steps to minimise any disruption to their business operations. The decision provides important guidance on the rights and obligations of employers and employees in relation to protected action ballots.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established