Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Loram Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 505


[2025] FWC 505

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

Loram Pty Ltd

(B2025/265)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 20 FEBRUARY 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Loram Pty Ltd

  1. This is an application by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RBTU 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 Loram Pty Ltd (Loram or Employer).

  1. On 19 February 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application as amended following discussions between the parties.

  1. I observe that the application and draft order provided by the RBTU contained certain observations about the RTBU’s preference in relation to the updating and finalisation of the list of voters. These were not in a form suitable for inclusion in the Order and contradicted some of the other proposed provisions. In that light, I have issued the Order using the Commission’s standard approach. I also observe that the Ballot Agent may have regard to the proposals set out in the application to the extent that they are consistent with the Order, the Act and associated regulations, and the proper conduct of a ballot of this kind.

  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 Bryan Evans, Branch Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the RBTU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Loram, 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 Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd (Vero). Vero 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 6 March 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR784555.

  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] This is, in effect, 10 working days from the making of the Order and was the specific date sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784557>

Details
AGLC
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Loram Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 505
Case
[2025] FWC 505
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Loram Pty Ltd. Loram, the employer, did not object to the application after discussions between the parties. The application was to determine whether a ballot for protected industrial action could proceed. The ballot was to be conducted by Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd, approved under section 468A of the Act as a ballot agent.

The key legal issue was whether the FWC should grant the ARU's application for a protected action ballot order. This required the FWC to determine if all the requirements of section 443 of the Act were met. Specifically, it needed to be established that the ARU had genuinely tried to reach agreement with Loram, that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the ARU had made the application in good faith.

The FWC Deputy President Hampton determined that all the requirements of section 443 of the Act had been met. The ARU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Loram and had made the application in good faith. The Deputy President concluded that the ballot should proceed and set the voting close date as 6 March 2025. The Deputy President also determined that the matter would be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act. This Member would issue an order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference.

The FWC issued an order granting the ARU's application for a protected action ballot order. The ballot was to be conducted by Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd, and voting was to close on 6 March 2025. The matter was assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act. The Member was to issue an order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the 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.