DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Melbourne City Council
(B2019/1276)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 NOVEMBER 2019

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

[2] On 8 November 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 Mr S 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 PR714108.

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 v Melbourne City Council, the dispute involved a proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Melbourne City Council. The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACSU) sought to conduct a ballot among its members, who were employees of the Council, to ascertain their support for potential protected action, including industrial action. The Melbourne City Council contested the validity and scope of the ballot, arguing it was not properly authorised under the applicable industrial relations laws.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the relevant industrial relations legislation and whether the union had the necessary authorisation to conduct the ballot. Specifically, the court had to determine if the ballot was appropriately focused on specific, authorised objectives and if it was conducted in accordance with the legal framework governing industrial action in the public sector.

The court found that the proposed ballot was not sufficiently focused on authorised objectives, as it included a broad range of potential protected actions that went beyond what was permissible under the law. The court held that the ballot did not comply with the necessary requirements and, therefore, was not valid. Consequently, the union's request to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the legislative provisions and the scope of the ballot, concluding that the union had not adhered to the legal framework governing such actions. This ruling ensured that the proposed ballot did not proceed, maintaining the regulatory integrity of the industrial relations process in the public sector.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Melbourne 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