Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1719

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v

Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/626)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 5 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, Queensland Branch (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 Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 5 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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 Peter James Allen of the Applicant declared on 29 June 2022, 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 PR743344.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, Queensland Branch sought a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the matter was heard by Vice President Catanzariti of the Fair Work Commission. The respondent did not oppose the application, leading to a decision on the papers without a hearing. The union argued it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and fulfilled the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the union had satisfied the conditions for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. This involved determining whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory notification period had been met. The union submitted a statutory declaration from Peter James Allen, outlining the steps taken in bargaining and asserting its efforts to reach an agreement. The court needed to assess the validity of these claims and the completeness of the notification process.

After reviewing the evidence provided by the union, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and met the statutory notification requirements. Consequently, the court granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was based on the union's statutory declaration and the absence of opposition from the employer. An order was subsequently issued in PR743344, formalising the court's decision.

The final order granted the union's application for a protected action ballot, allowing the employees to vote on potential protected actions. This decision was based on the union's demonstration of genuine bargaining efforts and compliance with the notification requirements under the Fair Work Act. The absence of opposition from the employer further supported the court's determination. The outcome ensures that the union can proceed with the ballot as part of its efforts to reach an agreement with the employer.

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Bombardier Transportation Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established