DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Moorabool Shire Council
(B2021/183)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Moorabool Shire 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 Moorabool Shire Council (Respondent).

[2] On 22 March 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Michelle Jackson 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 PR727984.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union initiated legal proceedings against Moorabool Shire Council over a proposed protected action ballot of the council's employees. The Union argued that the Council had not adequately consulted with them regarding the ballot, which was intended to gauge the employees' support for protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the relevant tribunal for employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues at the heart of the dispute centred on whether the Council had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act to consult with the Union about the proposed ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the Council's actions amounted to genuine consultation and whether the Union's concerns about the timing and content of the ballot were valid. The Union contended that the ballot was poorly communicated and did not provide enough information to allow for meaningful consultation.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the Council had not engaged in genuine consultation with the Union, primarily due to the short notice given and the lack of substantive information provided about the ballot. The Commission highlighted that the Act requires employers to consult in good faith and to provide sufficient information to enable meaningful discussion. The Commission concluded that the Council's actions fell short of these requirements and ordered the Council to remedy the situation by providing further information and engaging in proper consultation with the Union.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission mandated that the Council must provide the Union with detailed information about the ballot and engage in further consultation. The Commission also set aside the ballot, meaning it could not proceed until the Council had complied with the order. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to consultation requirements under the Fair Work Act and highlights the Commission's role in ensuring fair practices in the workplace.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Moorabool Shire Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established