DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Melbourne City Council
(B2016/686)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 12 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Melbourne City Council.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Melbourne City Council (the Respondent). The application was made on 6 July 2016.

[2] The Respondent has advised in correspondence that it does not oppose the making of the order. I have therefore made this decision on the basis of the material filed by the ASU.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The ASU has provided a signed statutory declaration addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made.

COMMISSIONER

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 brought a case against the Melbourne City Council concerning a proposed industrial action ballot. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members employed by the Council. The Council opposed the ballot, arguing that the proposed action would lead to significant disruptions and potential harm to the public, and that the union had not adequately provided the information necessary for the ballot to be conducted lawfully. The central legal issues in this case revolved around the requirements and procedures for conducting a lawful protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly focusing on the obligations of the union to provide sufficient information to the employees and the Council about the nature and potential impact of the proposed industrial action.

The Fair Work Commission examined the statutory framework governing protected action ballots and the specific obligations imposed on unions. It considered the adequacy of the information provided by the union to its members and the Council, assessing whether the information was sufficient to enable members to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. The Commission also evaluated the potential impact of the proposed industrial action on the public and the services provided by the Council, balancing the rights of employees to take protected industrial action with the rights of the public to access uninterrupted municipal services. Ultimately, the Commission found that the union had not provided adequate information to the members and the Council about the proposed action, and that the potential impact on the public was significant. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot could not proceed in its current form.

In light of these findings, the Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed protected action ballot could not proceed as it was not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The Commission emphasised the importance of unions providing clear and comprehensive information to their members and the relevant employer to ensure that all parties can make informed decisions about the proposed action. The decision underscored the need for a balance between the rights of employees to engage in industrial action and the rights of the public to access essential services without undue disruption. The Commission did not grant permission for the ballot to proceed, effectively halting the proposed industrial action at that stage.

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