Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical Services Union v Greater Dandenong City Council (No. 2)

The case of Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical Services Union v Greater Dandenong City Council (No. 2) involved ten test cases affecting approximately 70 employees and former employees of the Greater Dandenong City Council. The Union and one of the affected employees, Ms Phillips, sought relief from the dismissal of the employees on the basis that the Council had breached certain sections of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The dispute arose from the Council's decision to dismiss these employees as redundant when it outsourced the home and community care services to a private company, Silver Circle, which had been awarded the contract on the basis that it could offer lower wages and less favourable working conditions than the Council.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the Council had complied with the provisions of the Act in dismissing the employees and whether the dismissals were valid. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Council's actions were consistent with sections 298K and 298L(1)(h) of the Act, which pertain to genuine redundancy dismissals. The court also needed to consider whether the Council had adequately considered alternative options to dismissal and whether the dismissals were in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The court found that the Council had indeed breached the Act by not following the correct procedures in dismissing the employees. The court held that the Council had failed to consider the possibility of redeploying the employees to other positions within the Council or to other agencies, as required by the Act. Additionally, the court determined that the Council had not provided the employees with adequate notice or an opportunity to make representations regarding their dismissals. The court concluded that the dismissals were not genuine redundancies as required by the Act, and the Council's actions were therefore unlawful.

As a result of the findings, the court ordered the reinstatement of the employees who wished to return to their positions, along with back pay and other entitlements. The court also mandated that the Council and the Union engage in further discussions to address any outstanding issues and to ensure compliance with the Act in the future. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to legislative requirements in employment terminations and highlighted the need for employers to consider all reasonable alternatives to dismissal.