Application by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
Case
•
[2021] FWC 4391
•8 AUGUST 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Application by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2021] FWC 4391
[2021] FWC 4391
8 AUGUST 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union applied to the Fair Work Commission to hold a protected action ballot for its members employed by Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. The union sought the ballot to facilitate industrial action in the absence of an enterprise agreement. The respondents, Sydney Trains and NSW Trains, opposed the application on the basis that they were not single interest employers and that the union had not genuinely attempted to reach agreement. The union also applied to extend the notice period required before the ballot could be held.
The Commission needed to determine whether Sydney Trains and NSW Trains were single interest employers and whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach agreement with the respondents. The Commission also had to consider whether the application to extend the notice period should be granted. In determining these issues, the Commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.
The Fair Work Commission found that Sydney Trains and NSW Trains were single interest employers and that the union had genuinely attempted to reach agreement. However, the Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of the notice period. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot was granted, but the application to extend the notice period was dismissed. The Commission ordered that the union must provide the respondents with the required 21 days’ notice before holding the ballot.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union must provide Sydney Trains and NSW Trains with 21 days’ notice before holding the protected action ballot. The Commission did not grant the union’s application to extend the notice period. The union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as per the existing notice period requirements.
The Commission needed to determine whether Sydney Trains and NSW Trains were single interest employers and whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach agreement with the respondents. The Commission also had to consider whether the application to extend the notice period should be granted. In determining these issues, the Commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties.
The Fair Work Commission found that Sydney Trains and NSW Trains were single interest employers and that the union had genuinely attempted to reach agreement. However, the Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of the notice period. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot was granted, but the application to extend the notice period was dismissed. The Commission ordered that the union must provide the respondents with the required 21 days’ notice before holding the ballot.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union must provide Sydney Trains and NSW Trains with 21 days’ notice before holding the protected action ballot. The Commission did not grant the union’s application to extend the notice period. The union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as per the existing notice period requirements.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Protected Action Ballot
-
Collective Bargaining
-
Industrial Action
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd Trading as dnata [2025] FWC 2236
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd Trading as dnata
[2025] FWC 2236
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Sydney Trains T/A Sydney Trains, NSW Trains T/A NSW Trainlink
[2024] FWC 1915
Australian Workers' Union, The
[2022] FWC 2560
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Wesfarmers Premier Coal Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (No 2)
[2004] FCA 1737
Esso Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU; CEPU; AWU
[2015] FWCFB 210