| [2024] FWC 2390 |
| 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
Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
(B2024/1129)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 4 SEPTEMBER 2024 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd – Administrative Employees
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 Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd (Metro Tas or Employer). The application arises in the context of negotiations to replace the Metro Tasmania Administrative Employees Enterprise Agreement 2021.
I note that the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARTBIU)[1] has made a separate application for a protected action ballot order in relation to the same proposed enterprise agreement.
On 2 September 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application as amended following discussions.
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 Samantha Batchelor, ASU Tasmanian Coordinator, 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 Metro Tas, 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 TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). TrueVote 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 17 September 2024.[2] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.
An Order has been separately issued in PR778937.
This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference along with the other related matter. 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] B2024/1123.
[2] This is, in effect, 13 calendar days from the making of the Order and aligns with the ballot period for the related matter.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR778938>
- AGLC
- Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2390
- Case
- [2024] FWC 2390
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues the Commission needed to decide were whether the requirements for a ballot order under s.437 of the Fair Work Act had been met, including that the union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the employer. The Commission also had to determine an appropriate closing date for the ballot. The ASU provided a declaration stating that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and had taken steps to bargain with Metro Tas.
The Deputy President was satisfied, based on the evidence before the Commission, that the ASU had met the requirements for a ballot order. The Deputy President noted that the employer did not object to the application. The closing date for the ballot was set at 17 September 2024, which aligned with the ballot period for the related matter. The Commission determined that the ballot would be conducted by TrueVote, which is an approved ballot agent under the Act.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order for the ballot to be conducted by TrueVote, with voting to close on 17 September 2024. The matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission for a compulsory conciliation conference to conduct meaningful negotiations regarding the proposed enterprise agreement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.