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

Case [2024] FWC 3273


[2024] FWC 3273

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Sydney Trains and NSW Trains

(B2024/1533)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 NOVEMBER 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains

  1. This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union Union (ASU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains (the Employers).

  1. On 22 November 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application, as amended following discussions between the parties.[1]

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Jan Primrose, Deputy Secretary, setting out the steps taken by the ASU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with it, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of  the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS). CiVS has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

  1. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 10 December 2024.[2] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. I am satisfied that there are relevant exceptional circumstances required by s.443(5), justifying an extended period of written notice for the purposes of s.414(2)(b) of the Act when taking industrial action set out in the Order made by the Commission. The extended notice period of 7 working days applies to the items listed within Clause five (5) of the Order.

  1. I have determined to make the Order separately issued in PR781648, having considered the draft order filed with the application by the ASU.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] The Respondent requested the inclusion of a Period of Extended Notice and slight amendments to the questions listed at clause 5 of the Order. The Applicant subsequently confirmed they were comfortable with the proposed amendments.

[2] This is, in effect, 10 working days from the making of the Order.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR781650>

Details
AGLC
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Sydney Trains and NSW Trains [2024] FWC 3273
Case
[2024] FWC 3273
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order against Sydney Trains and NSW Trains. The application pertained to a proposed protected action ballot of certain employees. The Employers did not object to the application, leading the Commission to determine the matter based on the submitted documents.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the ASU had satisfied all the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. This involved verifying if the ASU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Employers and if the notification time and other procedural requirements under section 443 of the Act had been met. Additionally, the court had to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extended period of written notice as required by section 443(5) of the Act.

Upon reviewing the documents, including the declaration from Jan Primrose, Deputy Secretary, the Deputy President found that the ASU had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employers and that all statutory requirements had been fulfilled. The Commission was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. Given the lack of objection from the Employers and the approval of the ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd, the court granted the application. The closing date for voting was set as 10 December 2024, and an extended notice period of 7 working days was established for the specified items in Clause five of the Order. The matter was subsequently assigned to another member of the Commission for a compulsory conciliation conference.

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.