Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 2390 Fair Work Commission 2024-01-01
Source
Deputy President Hampton
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
Respondent: Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
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 (460 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd (B2024/1129) DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON ADELAIDE, 4 SEPTEMBER 2024 Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd – Administrative Employees [1] This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd (Metro Tas or Employer). The application arises in the context of negotiations to replace the Metro Tasmania Administrative Employees Enterprise Agreement 2021. [2] I note that the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARTBIU)1 has made a separate application for a protected action ballot order in relation to the same proposed enterprise agreement. [3] On 2 September 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application as amended following discussions. [4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. [5] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Samantha Batchelor, ASU Tasmanian Coordinator, 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 Metro Tas, 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. [6] The ballot is to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). TrueVote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot. [7] 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 17 September 2024.2 This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act. [2024] FWC 2390 DECISION [2024] FWC 2390 2 [8] An Order has been separately issued in PR778937. [9] This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference along with the other related matter. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives 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. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR778938> 1 B2024/1123. 2 This is, in effect, 13 calendar days from the making of the Order and aligns with the ballot period for the related matter.