DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v
Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd
(B2015/60)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 10 APRIL 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Toll dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd.

[1] On 8 April 2015, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU), made an application for a protected action ballot order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the ASU who are employees of Toll dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by the proposed agreement to replace the Toll dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd Employees Ramp and Cargo Enterprise Agreement 2010 - 2013.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of the ASU and who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application was supplemented with a Statement of Matthew Norrey dated 9 April 2015 (the Statement). In summary, the Statement provided information about events involving attempts made by the ASU to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The application was listed for Hearing in Sydney before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 10 April 2015, at which time the following appearances were recorded:

Ms Emeline Gaske on behalf of the ASU, by telephone.

[4] In view of the materials filed including the Statement together with the submissions made by the ASU during the Hearing, the Commission provided an extemporary determination of the application and this Decision is issued as confirmation of that determination.

[5] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[6] In this instance I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. In particular, I am satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[7] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make a protected action ballot order. The Order shall be made in the terms as broadly sought by the ASU. Accordingly an Order [PR562955] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms Emeline Gaske on behalf of the ASU.

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney:

April, 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (AMA) brought a case against Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The AMA sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Toll Dnata, who were involved in handling and managing the luggage of passengers at Melbourne Airport. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the notice provided by Toll Dnata regarding the proposed industrial action.

The court was required to determine whether the notice provided by Toll Dnata to the AMA was procedurally fair and in compliance with the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the notice contained sufficient information to enable the AMA to understand the basis of Toll Dnata's objections and to respond effectively. The court also needed to assess whether the notice was delivered in a timely manner, ensuring the AMA had adequate opportunity to address the concerns raised.

The Fair Work Commission found that the notice provided by Toll Dnata was procedurally fair. The notice contained sufficient information for the AMA to understand the objections and respond. The court also concluded that the notice was delivered in a timely manner, allowing the AMA to adequately address the concerns raised. The notice included details of the proposed industrial action, the reasons for objection, and the specific procedural steps that the AMA needed to take to avoid invalidating the ballot. The court noted that the notice was comprehensive and provided the AMA with a clear understanding of the procedural requirements.

The final orders of the court confirmed the procedural fairness of the notice provided by Toll Dnata. The court did not find any procedural defects in the notice and allowed the proposed protected action ballot to proceed. The decision emphasised the importance of clear and timely communication between parties involved in industrial disputes to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legislative requirements.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Toll Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established