Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Pacific National Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National

[2022] FWC 1095

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v

Pacific National Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National

(B2022/409)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 10 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pacific National

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 Pacific National Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National (Respondent).

On 10 May 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 Gregory Cameron of the Applicant declared on 6 May 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 and Directions have been separately issued in PR741414 and PR741416 respectively.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union and Pacific National Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the union's proposed ballot of its members regarding protected industrial action. The union aimed to conduct a protected action ballot to gauge its members' support for potential industrial action, while Pacific National sought to prevent the ballot, arguing that it would unduly disrupt its operations.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot constituted a 'protected action ballot' under the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission had to determine whether Pacific National's objections to the ballot were justified and whether the ballot's implementation would cause undue hardship or significant operational disruption to the company.

The Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and the specific circumstances of the proposed ballot. It considered the nature of the industrial action, the potential impact on Pacific National's operations, and the union's obligations under the Act. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was indeed a 'protected action ballot' and that the union had provided sufficient information to its members. However, it found that the ballot, if conducted, would cause significant operational disruption to Pacific National. Consequently, the Commission ordered that the ballot could proceed but required the union to take certain measures to mitigate the potential impact on Pacific National's operations. These measures included providing adequate notice, allowing for consultation, and ensuring that the ballot did not interfere with critical services.

The Commission's final orders allowed the union to proceed with the protected action ballot but mandated that the union implement the specified measures to minimise operational disruptions. The union was permitted to conduct the ballot, but it had to adhere to the conditions set by the Commission to balance its members' rights with Pacific National's operational needs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established