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

Case [2015] FWC 7944


[2015] FWC 7944

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 19 November 2015

Date issued corrected

Nahum Moreau

Associate to Deputy President Asbury

Dated19 November 2015

[2015] FWC 7944
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
(B2015/1620)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 19 NOVEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU). The ASU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Rail (the Employer).

[2] On 18 November 2015 my Associate, at my request, wrote to the Employer requesting their view in relation to the application. The Employer has advised in writing that it does not object to the proposed orders sought by the ASU.

[3] The Employer has requested that, pursuant to s.443(5) of the Act, the period of notice referred to in s.414(2)(a) of the Act be extended to a period of 7 consecutive days. The Employer submits that there are exceptional circumstances that would justify the extension of the notice period.

[4] I note that the draft orders proposed by the ASU include a term that, pursuant to s.443(5) of the Act, the period of notice for the purposes of s.414(2)(b) is 7 consecutive days and on that basis I assume that the ASU consents to the Employers request. I also note that this approach is consistent with previous protected action ballot orders involving the Employer.

[5] I am satisfied that, given the nature of the Employer’s operations, there are exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of the notice period specified in s.414(2)(a) of the Act to 7 days consecutive days.

[6] The ASU has filed a Statement of Mr James William Mattner in support of the application. Mr Mattner is a senior industrial officer who has responsibility for representing the industrial interests of members of the ASU employed by the Employer.

[7] On the basis of the information contained in Mr Mattner’s Statement and the application I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR574087] based on the draft provided by the ASU will issue at the same time as this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR574085>

Details
AGLC
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail [2015] FWC 7944
Case
[2015] FWC 7944
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMACSU) brought proceedings against the Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail, seeking to overturn an Industrial Commission of Queensland decision that had rejected the union's proposal for a protected action ballot. The union sought to ballot its members for protected action, including industrial action, in response to what it claimed were Queensland Rail's failure to negotiate in good faith, and its refusal to address various workplace issues. The dispute centred around the legal validity of the proposed ballot and the Industrial Commission's decision to reject it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Industrial Commission had erred in law in refusing to order Queensland Rail to facilitate the union's proposed ballot. The court had to consider whether the Industrial Commission had applied the correct legal principles in its assessment of the union's application. The union argued that the Commission had failed to properly consider the union's submissions and the applicable legal framework, including the requirement for Queensland Rail to facilitate a ballot under certain conditions.

The court found that the Industrial Commission had indeed erred in law. The union had provided sufficient evidence to support its application for a ballot, and the Commission's decision had not properly considered the evidence and the applicable legal framework. The court held that the Industrial Commission had failed to adequately address the union's arguments and had not correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the court quashed the Commission's decision and remitted the matter back to the Commission for re-determination.

The final orders of the court were that the Industrial Commission's decision be quashed and the matter be remitted for re-determination, with the union to be given an opportunity to present its case afresh. The court did not make any orders regarding the costs of the proceedings.

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.