Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Freightliner Australia Coal Haulage Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 6979

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
Freightliner Australia Coal Haulage Pty Ltd
(B2014/1428)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 3 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Freightliner Australia Coal Haulage Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARTBIU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Freightliner Australia Coal Haulage Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the ARTBIU filed a statement dated 30 September 2014 made by Mr Stephen David Wright, Locomotive Freight Organiser of the ARTBIU. Mr Wright’s statement advises that approximately 15 meetings have been held with the Employer with the intention of reaching an agreement.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the ARTBIU, that the ARTBIU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR556219] based on the draft order provided by the ARTBIU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Freightliner Australia Coal Haulage Pty Ltd regarding protected action. The employer opposed the ballot on the grounds that the union had not provided adequate particulars of the proposed action and that the ballot did not comply with certain statutory requirements. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action and whether the union had provided sufficient particulars of the proposed action.

The Fair Work Commission examined the statutory provisions governing protected industrial action and the particulars that must be provided in a ballot notice. The Commission found that the union's ballot notice did not sufficiently detail the proposed action, as required by section 353 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The notice did not specify the precise nature of the action, the duration, or the potential impact on the employer's operations. The Commission concluded that the lack of detail meant that employees could not make an informed decision about whether to support the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission determined that the ballot notice did not comply with other statutory requirements, such as the inclusion of a statement about the potential legal consequences of participating in the action.

As a result of these findings, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application to conduct the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of providing clear and comprehensive particulars in a ballot notice to ensure that employees can make informed decisions about participating in protected action. The employer was not required to take any further action, as the Commission's decision effectively prevented the union from proceeding with the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established