Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc v Brimbank City Council

[2022] FWC 699

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc

Brimbank City Council

(B2022/251)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 29 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Brimbank City Council.

This is an application by the 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 Brimbank City Council (the Respondent).

On 29 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 Applicant’s response to the concerns raised by the Respondent and 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 of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to make an order for a protected action ballot in the terms sought by the Applicant.

An order has been separately issued in PR739816.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Municipal and Utilities Workers Union Inc brought an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against the Brimbank City Council. The union sought to hold a protected action ballot for certain employees of the council. The application was heard by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on 29 March 2022. The council did not object to the application, allowing the matter to be determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the union had complied with the notification requirements set out in section 443 of the Act. The union argued that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the council and had taken all necessary steps to do so. The declaration of Mr Brian Parkinson, who represented the union, confirmed these assertions. The court needed to decide if the union had met the statutory obligations and if the notification period for the proposed agreement was sufficient.

After considering the materials submitted, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443. The union had provided evidence of its attempts to negotiate with the council and the declaration by Mr Parkinson supported the union's position. The Deputy President concluded that an order for a protected action ballot should be granted. An order was subsequently issued in PR739816, allowing the ballot to proceed as sought by the union.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established