Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. T/A Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. v Moreland City Council

[2022] FWC 476

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. T/A Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc.
v

Moreland City Council

(B2022/152)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Moreland City Council

This is an application by the Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. T/A Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Moreland City Council (the Respondent).

On 3 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Brian Parkinson 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738982.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. T/A Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc. (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Moreland City Council (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which relates to protected action ballots for employees in dispute with their employer. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to decide to determine the matter based on the provided documents without holding a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Applicant had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. This involved verifying if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the conditions under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been fulfilled. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider the Applicant's declaration, which outlined the steps taken during bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed the Applicant's genuine attempts to reach an agreement.

Upon reviewing the evidence, including the declaration by Mr. Brian Parkinson of the Applicant and the documentation supporting the bargaining process, the Deputy President concluded that the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had indeed been met. The Commission found that the notification time was present and that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. As a result, the application was approved, and the Commission issued an order accordingly.

The final order issued by the Deputy President allowed the protected action ballot to proceed. This decision enabled the employees to vote on the proposed agreement, facilitating a transparent and democratic process in the resolution of the dispute between the union and the employer. The Commission's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act to ensure fair and lawful industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established