Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

[2023] FWC 1153

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

(B2023/428)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority

This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (Respondent).

On 9 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent objected to the application, however, the parties were able to reach a consent position.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Danny Reeves of the Applicant declared on 5 May 2023, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR761937.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order permitting a protected action ballot of certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (Respondent). The application was made to allow the union to ballot its members for industrial action. The Respondent initially objected to the application but subsequently reached a consent position with the Applicant. The Vice President determined the matter on the papers, without a hearing, based on the evidence provided by the Applicant, including a statutory declaration from Danny Reeves, which outlined the bargaining process with the Respondent and the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The primary legal issue was whether the union had met the requirements under section 437 of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. This involved determining if the union had fulfilled the notification time for the proposed agreement and complied with section 443(1) of the Act. The Vice President considered the statutory declaration and other material before deciding if the union had satisfied the legislative criteria for holding the ballot.

The Vice President was satisfied that the union had met the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that it had complied with section 443(1) of the Act. The Vice President found that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken the necessary steps to comply with the legislative requirements. Consequently, the Vice President granted the order permitting the protected action ballot.

An Order has been issued in PR761937, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot of its members. The decision affirms the union's right to hold a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act, provided it meets the statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established