Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Keolis Downer Hunter Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 794

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v

Keolis Downer Hunter Pty Ltd

(B2022/267)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

ADELAIDE, 8 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Keolis Downer Hunter Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry 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 Keolis Downer Hunter Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 5 April 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 Daniel Jaggers of the Applicant declared on 1 April 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 PR740163.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order to conduct a protected action ballot in relation to certain employees of Keolis Downer Hunter Pty Ltd (Respondent). The application was made without opposition from the Respondent. The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter on the basis of the written submissions, including the statutory declaration of Daniel Jaggers of the Applicant, without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the Vice President were whether the notification period had been met and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The Vice President found that the notification period had been met and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The Vice President was satisfied that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement.

The Vice President granted the application and issued an order for a protected action ballot to be conducted. The order was issued separately and is identified as PR740163. The decision was made on 8 April 2022 in Adelaide. The decision was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and was printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established