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 Wanneroo
(B2021/996)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of City of Wanneroo

[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 Wanneroo (Respondent).

[2] On 15 October 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 12 October 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 PR735066.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks, Cemeteries and Racecourse, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union and the City of Wanneroo. The dispute arose from a proposed ballot of protected action by the employees of the City of Wanneroo. The matter was heard by the Industrial Relations Commission of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the City of Wanneroo could lawfully prevent the union from conducting a ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The court had to determine the legal rights of both parties under the applicable industrial relations laws.

The court considered the statutory framework governing industrial disputes in Western Australia, particularly focusing on the rights of unions to organise and conduct ballots for protected action. The court examined the procedural requirements for conducting such ballots and whether the City of Wanneroo had complied with these requirements. It was necessary to assess whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the legal standards and if the City of Wanneroo had any legitimate grounds to object to the ballot. The court also had to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed ballot on the operations and services of the City of Wanneroo.

After carefully reviewing the relevant laws and the evidence presented, the court found that the union's proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements for conducting protected action. The court held that the City of Wanneroo did not have valid grounds to prevent the union from conducting the ballot. The court emphasised that the right of employees to organise and take protected action is a fundamental aspect of industrial relations and must be respected. The court concluded that the City of Wanneroo's actions in attempting to prevent the ballot were unlawful. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union and ordered that the City of Wanneroo allow the proposed ballot to proceed. The court also directed the City of Wanneroo to take necessary steps to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the law.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established