DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Sorell Council
(B2019/518)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 JULY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sorell 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 Sorell Council (Respondent).

[2] On 3 July 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 Aaron De La Torre 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 PR709996.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the Union) sought an injunction to prevent the Sorell Council (the Council) from proceeding with a ballot of its employees regarding proposed protected action. The Union argued that the ballot was not appropriately conducted, and that the Council had not followed the necessary legal requirements. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining the validity of the Council's proposed ballot process.

The central legal issue was whether the Council had complied with the necessary statutory requirements and procedural fairness in organising the ballot. The Union contended that the ballot was flawed and did not meet the standards set by the applicable legislation, specifically the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Cth). The Council, on the other hand, maintained that it had followed the correct procedures and had not acted unfairly. The Court needed to assess the validity of these contentions and determine whether the Union's claims had merit.

The Court held that the Council had indeed complied with the relevant statutory provisions and procedural fairness in organising the ballot. It found that the ballot was appropriately conducted, and the Council had not acted unfairly. The Court rejected the Union's arguments, stating that the Council had followed the correct procedures and had not breached any legal requirements. Consequently, the Union's application for an injunction was dismissed.

The Court's decision was that the Council's proposed ballot of its employees was valid and appropriately conducted. The Union's application for an injunction was dismissed, and the Council was permitted to proceed with the ballot. The Court's ruling clarified the legal requirements for conducting a ballot of public sector employees and confirmed the procedural fairness of the Council's actions.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Sorell Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established