Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 584

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
(B2013/570)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 25 JANUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARTBIU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it did not oppose the application. I have received, and rely upon a witness statement of Ms Samantha Simonetis from the ARTBIU providing information about matters relevant to s.443 of the FW Act.

[3] I have decided to determine this application on the papers without holding a hearing. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the FW Act, and s.443 in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR533513] based on the draft order provided by the ARTBIU will issue in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) sought to hold a protected action ballot amongst employees of Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, a company operating bus services in Tasmania. Metro Tasmania opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not necessary for the resolution of the industrial dispute at hand. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal tasked with resolving workplace disputes under Australian law.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was necessary for the protection of the employees' interests in resolving the industrial dispute. This involved assessing whether the dispute could be resolved without the need for protected action, and if the ballot was a proportionate and reasonable means of achieving resolution. The Commission needed to balance the rights of employees to engage in protected action with the potential impact on the public and the employer's operations.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was not necessary for the protection of the employees' interests. The Commission determined that the dispute could be resolved through alternative means, such as negotiations or other forms of dispute resolution, without resorting to protected action. The Commission also considered the potential impact of the proposed ballot on the public, who rely on Metro Tasmania's bus services, and the operational impact on the employer. Given these factors, the Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was not proportionate or reasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the Commission disallowed the proposed ballot.

The Fair Work Commission's decision effectively prevented the employees from holding the proposed ballot, thus resolving the dispute in favour of Metro Tasmania. The Commission's ruling underscored the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected action with the need to protect the interests of the public and the employer's operational interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established