DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks, Cemeteries and Racecourse, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union
v
City of Rockingham
(B2021/774)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Rockingham.

[1] This is an application by the Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks, Cemeteries and Racecourse, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union (Western Australian Division) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of City of Rockingham (Respondent).

[2] On 13 September 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Andrew Gerard Johnson of the Applicant declared on 10 September 2021, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR734039.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks, Cemeteries and Racecourse, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union v City of Rockingham, the applicants sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine if they would support protected action. The dispute arose when the union proposed to ballot employees of the City of Rockingham regarding potential protected action. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine the legality of this proposed ballot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant industrial laws, particularly focusing on the notification requirements outlined in section 63 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to assess whether the union had appropriately notified the City of Rockingham of the ballot as mandated by law. The union argued that the notification was sufficient, while the City of Rockingham contended that the notification was inadequate and therefore the ballot should not proceed.

The court determined that the union's notification did not comply with the statutory requirements, as it did not include all necessary details. Consequently, the court held that the union's proposed ballot was unlawful and granted an injunction to prevent its conduct. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the precise statutory procedures for conducting a ballot of this nature. This decision underscored the necessity for unions to meticulously follow legal protocols to avoid potential sanctions.

The court's decision resulted in the union being restrained from proceeding with the proposed ballot. This outcome highlighted the critical importance of strict compliance with legislative mandates in industrial actions, ensuring that all parties involved are adequately informed and the legal framework is upheld.

Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks, Cemeteries and Racecourse, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union v City of Rockingham

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established