DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater
(B2021/590)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater.

[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 Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater (Respondent).

[2] On 26 July 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 Karen Tantari 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 PR732125.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and the Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater. The Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of TasWater, which the corporation opposed, leading to proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements and if the corporation had sufficient grounds to prevent it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the ballot, which aimed to gather employee support for protected action, adhered to the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This included assessing whether the ballot notice provided by the Union sufficiently informed employees about the nature of the proposed action and the implications for their employment. The court also considered the corporation's contention that the ballot was improperly conducted or not in compliance with procedural requirements.

In its decision, the court held that the Union's ballot notice was adequate and complied with the statutory requirements. The notice provided clear information about the proposed action and its potential impact on the employees. The court rejected the corporation's argument that the ballot was improperly conducted, finding no procedural flaws that would warrant the prevention of the ballot. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of allowing employees to participate in the democratic process of deciding on protected action, provided that all legal requirements were met.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed. The corporation was ordered to facilitate the ballot as per the Union's request, ensuring that employees had the opportunity to express their views on the proposed action. The court's decision reinforced the legal framework supporting employees' rights to organise and engage in protected action, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established