[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
| <Price code A, PR577663> |
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
- AGLC
- Application by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2016] FWC 1416
- Case
- [2016] FWC 1416
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.