DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
v
City of Greater Dandenong
(B2015/1438)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Greater Dandenong.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the City of Greater Dandenong (the Respondent). The application was made on 6 October 2015.

[1] The Respondent has advised in correspondence that it does not oppose the making of the order. I have therefore made this decision on the basis of the material filed by the ANMF.

[2] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[3] The ANMF has provided a signed statutory declaration addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made.

[5] I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the ANMF.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation brought a case against the City of Greater Dandenong over a proposed protected action ballot of employees of the City. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the applicant seeking an order that the City take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees were informed of their rights to take protected action and that the ballot would be held in a manner that was lawful and not coercive. The City opposed the application, arguing that the ballot was not coercive and that it had already taken reasonable steps to inform employees of their rights.

The Commission was required to determine whether the City had taken all reasonable steps to inform employees of their rights to take protected action and whether the proposed ballot was coercive. The applicant argued that the City's communications to employees were inadequate and that the ballot process was likely to be coercive. The City argued that it had taken all reasonable steps to inform employees of their rights and that the ballot process was not coercive.

The Commission found that the City had not taken all reasonable steps to inform employees of their rights to take protected action. The Commission found that the City's communications to employees were inadequate and that the ballot process was likely to be coercive. The Commission made an order that the City take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees were informed of their rights to take protected action and that the ballot was held in a manner that was lawful and not coercive. The City was also ordered to provide a report to the Commission within 14 days of the decision outlining the steps it had taken to comply with the order.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v City of Greater Dandenong

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established