DECISION

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

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
ZNX Pty Ltd T/A Zinfra
(B2020/155)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ZNX Pty Ltd T/A Zinfra.

[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 ZNX Pty Ltd T/A Zinfra (Respondent).

[2] On 13 March 2020, 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 statutory declaration of Mr J Smallbone 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 PR717520

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 v ZNX Pty Ltd T/A Zinfra, the union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine their willingness to take protected industrial action. The dispute centred around the employees' potential involvement in a strike and whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union had adhered to the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had correctly notified the employer and provided the necessary information to the employees as required by section 388 of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to consider if there were any procedural irregularities that could invalidate the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had failed to provide adequate information to the employees about the consequences of taking protected action. The union did not clearly explain the legal risks involved in participating in a strike, which is a mandatory requirement under the Act. As a result, the Commission determined that the ballot was not conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions and thus was invalid. The court upheld this decision, emphasising the importance of ensuring that employees are fully informed before participating in industrial action.

As a consequence of the court's decision, the union's proposed protected action ballot was declared invalid, and no further industrial action could proceed based on that ballot. This ruling underscores the necessity for unions to strictly follow the legal requirements when organising ballots for protected action.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v ZNX Pty Ltd T/A Zinfra

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established