DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Warrnambool City Council
(B2019/756)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Warrnambool City 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 Warrnambool City Council (Respondent).

[2] On 10 September 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 Mr D Walmsley 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 PR712251.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union versus Warrnambool City Council, the dispute arose from a proposed ballot of employees to determine if they would engage in protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction to resolve workplace disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union sought to conduct a ballot among its members, who were employees of Warrnambool City Council, to determine whether they would participate in industrial action. The council opposed the ballot, raising concerns about the potential impact on the council's operations and the rights of non-union employees.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had complied with the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union had provided the council with the requisite information, including a list of employees eligible to vote, and if the union had acted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Commission also needed to consider whether the proposed ballot would unduly interfere with the rights of non-union employees and the ability of the council to perform its duties.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had not fully complied with the legislative requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission found that the union had failed to provide the council with a complete list of employees eligible to vote and had not adequately considered the impact on non-union employees. As a result, the Commission determined that the proposed ballot could not proceed. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework to ensure a fair process and to protect the rights of all employees involved.

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the Warrnambool City Council, preventing the union from proceeding with the ballot. The decision underscored the necessity for unions to comply strictly with the legislative requirements when organising industrial action to protect the rights of all employees and to ensure the efficient operation of public services. The Commission's decision provided clarity on the procedural obligations and highlighted the balance that must be struck between the rights of union members and non-union employees.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Warrnambool City Council

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established