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
(B2021/589)

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 PR732122.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union sought a declaration in the Fair Work Commission that a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of the Tasmanian Water & Sewage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater was not protected action. The employer argued that the proposed ballot was not protected action because it related to an enterprise agreement that was terminated by the Fair Work Commission under section 170BA of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The employer also argued that the proposed ballot was not protected action because it was not related to an enterprise agreement, as the employees were not part of the workforce of the employer. The Fair Work Commission held that the proposed ballot was protected action because it related to an enterprise agreement that was terminated by the Fair Work Commission under section 170BA of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission also held that the proposed ballot was related to an enterprise agreement, as the employees were part of the workforce of the employer. The Commission made a declaration that the proposed industrial action ballot was protected action.

The legal issues in this case were whether the proposed industrial action ballot was protected action and whether it related to an enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was protected action because it related to an enterprise agreement that was terminated by the Commission under section 170BA of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission also found that the proposed ballot was related to an enterprise agreement, as the employees were part of the workforce of the employer. The Commission's decision was based on the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the relevant case law. The Commission held that the proposed ballot was protected action because it related to an enterprise agreement that was terminated by the Commission under section 170BA of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission also held that the proposed ballot was related to an enterprise agreement, as the employees were part of the workforce of the employer. The Commission made a declaration that the proposed industrial action ballot was protected action.

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