Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie

[2023] FWC 2005 Fair Work Commission 2023-01-01
Source
Deputy President Hampton
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
Respondent: Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Sign in to analyse

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Concept tags · 7

[P]Enterprise agreement approval [P]Enterprise agreement variation [P]Protected action ballot order [P]Protected industrial action [S]Good faith bargaining [S]Conciliation and arbitration powers [S]Declaration
Archived text (431 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie (B2023/824) DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON ADELAIDE, 11 AUGUST 2023 Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie [1] This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Burnie City Council T/A City of Burnie (City of Bernie or Employer). [2] On 11 August 2023, the Commission was advised that the City of Bernie, in effect, did not object to the Application, as amended.1 [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 declaration of Mr Troy Baker on behalf of the ASU, setting out the steps taken by the ASU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the City of Bernie, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. [5] The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 22 September 2023.2 This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act. [6] An order has been separately issued in PR765110. [1] This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives involved in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations. [2023] FWC 2005 DECISION [2023] FWC 2005 2 DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR765111> 1 The Respondent requested amendments be made to the Applicant’s responses to Question 2.3 of the F34 and Questions 1.2, 1.6, 1.9 and 2.1 of the F34B; those amendments were subsequently made by the Applicant on 11 August 2023. 2 This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order, which is the period required by the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a ballot.