Municipal and Utilities Workers Union v Maribyrnong City Council

[2023] FWC 962

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Municipal and Utilities Workers Union
v

Maribyrnong City Council

(B2023/368)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Maribyrnong City Council

This is an application by the Municipal and Utilities Workers 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 Maribyrnong City Council (Respondent).

On 21 April 2023, 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
PR761308.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Municipal and Utilities Workers Union (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Maribyrnong City Council (Respondent) under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made due to ongoing difficulties in reaching an agreement with the Respondent regarding a proposed agreement. Maribyrnong City Council did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing. The Applicant provided a declaration from Mr. Brian Parkinson, outlining the steps taken during bargaining and affirming the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Council.

The legal issues before the court included whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was met and if the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The court examined the Applicant's declaration and the steps taken in bargaining to ensure that the union genuinely attempted to reach an agreement. The Applicant's declaration was critical in establishing that the union had met the necessary criteria for proceeding with a protected action ballot. The court needed to ascertain if these efforts were sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for a ballot.

The Deputy President concluded that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement was met and that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act were satisfied. Based on the declaration provided by the Applicant and the steps taken during bargaining, the court was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Council. The court determined that the application met the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot order, leading to the issuance of an order in PR761308.

This decision ensures that the union can proceed with the ballot for protected action, allowing employees to vote on potential industrial action if further negotiations with the Council fail. The court's reasoning focused on the union's efforts to negotiate in good faith and the satisfaction of statutory requirements for a ballot. The outcome supports the union's ability to pursue protected action if deemed necessary to resolve the ongoing disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established