Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Melton City Council

[2023] FWC 57

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union

Melton City Council

(B2023/11)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 10 JANUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Melton City Council.

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 Melton City Council (Respondent).

On 10 January 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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 Ms Georgia Symons 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR749503.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Melton City Council. The application was made without opposition from the Council, allowing the Deputy President to determine the matter on the papers. The primary issue before the Deputy President was whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met for a ballot to be held. This section mandates that a notification period must be in place before a protected action ballot can occur, and the Deputy President had to determine if this had been satisfied.

The Deputy President examined the declaration from Ms. Georgia Symons of the Applicant, which detailed the bargaining efforts and negotiations between the union and the Council. The declaration outlined the steps taken by the union in its attempts to reach an agreement with the Council. The Deputy President found that the union had genuinely tried to negotiate and that a notification period was indeed in place. Consequently, the Deputy President was satisfied that the prerequisites for a protected action ballot had been met.

As a result of the findings, the Deputy President decided to grant the application. The decision was made without the need for a hearing due to the absence of opposition from the Council. The Deputy President issued an order in a separate proceeding, identified as PR749503, formalising the authorisation for the protected action ballot. The decision underscores the importance of meeting statutory requirements before proceeding with a ballot, ensuring that the union's efforts to negotiate are acknowledged and that all legal prerequisites are fulfilled.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established