Application by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union

[2016] FWC 1416

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
UGL Rail Pty Ltd
(B2016/343)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2016
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU)

(the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action

ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 3 March 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the

application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without

holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B

Evans of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent

Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the

Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been

met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR577664.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) made an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking an order for a protected action ballot for certain employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from the union's attempts to reach an agreement with the employer regarding the terms and conditions of employment. UGL Rail Pty Ltd did not oppose the application. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Gostencnik, decided to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing, as the employer did not object to the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had fulfilled the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act by genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer. The union submitted a statutory declaration by Mr. B. Evans, affirming the union's efforts to negotiate with the employer and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The court considered this declaration along with other material before it to determine if the union met the statutory requirements.

Having reviewed the material, the Deputy President concluded that the union had satisfied the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. The court found that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and thus had met the necessary conditions for the application. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order in accordance with the union's request.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established