DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Sydney Trains; NSW Trains T/A NSW TrainLink
(B2021/685)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains T/A NSW TrainLink.

[1] 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 Sydney Trains and NSW Trains T/A NSW TrainLink (Respondents).

[2] On 18 August 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondents did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Amanda Perkins of the Applicant declared on 16 August 2021, 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.

[5] An Order and Directions have been separately issued in PR733007 and PR733010 respectively.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and Sydney Trains. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains trading as NSW TrainLink. The dispute centred on the timing and nature of the ballot, with the union arguing for immediate action due to alleged unsafe working conditions. Sydney Trains, however, contested the union's right to conduct the ballot, citing procedural and jurisdictional concerns. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for resolving this labour dispute.

The central legal issues revolved around the procedural validity of the union's ballot application and the jurisdictional reach of the Fair Work Commission. The union argued that the Commission had the authority to oversee the ballot, given the nature of the industrial dispute and the urgency of the employees' concerns. Sydney Trains contended that the ballot process was flawed and that the Commission's jurisdiction was limited to certain types of disputes. The court had to determine whether the Commission could intervene in the scheduling and conduct of the ballot and whether the union's application was legally sound.

The Fair Work Commission examined the union's application and the submissions from Sydney Trains. It found that the union's concerns about working conditions were legitimate and warranted a prompt response. The Commission held that it had the jurisdiction to address the procedural aspects of the ballot and that the union's application was properly made. It concluded that the ballot should proceed, albeit with certain conditions to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements. The court's decision thus supported the union's right to organise the ballot, subject to the imposed conditions.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission ordered that the ballot proceed, with modifications to the union's original proposal. These modifications included specific timelines and procedural safeguards to ensure the ballot was conducted fairly and in accordance with the relevant industrial laws. The Commission also directed that Sydney Trains provide necessary information and resources to facilitate the ballot process. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of employees to organise with the need for orderly and lawful industrial action.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Sydney Trains

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established