Municipal and Utilities Workers Union v Stonnington City Council

[2022] FWC 2305

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Municipal and Utilities Workers Union
v

Stonnington City Council

(B2022/1296)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 31 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Stonnington 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 Stonnington City Council (Respondent).

On 30 August 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 PR745314.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Municipal and Utilities Workers Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Stonnington City Council. The application was made following a period of negotiations between the union and the council, which had not resulted in an agreement. The council did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the union had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Act to hold a protected action ballot. The union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the council and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The council did not object to the application, and the Deputy President was satisfied that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The Deputy President noted that the union had provided a declaration from a representative setting out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the council, and that the union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the council. The Deputy President was also satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. As a result, the Deputy President decided to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot order.

An order was issued separately in PR745314, granting the union's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Stonnington City Council. The order allows the union to hold a ballot of its members to determine whether they wish to take protected industrial action. The order is subject to certain conditions, including that the union must provide the council with a copy of the ballot paper and the results of the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established