DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail
(B2020/109)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 28 FEBRUARY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail.

[1] 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 Queensland Rail Transit Authority (Respondent).

[2] On 27 February 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Owen Doogan of the Applicant declared on 26 February 2020, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and are, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR717109.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail, the dispute involved a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority. The parties before the court were the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, acting as the representative for the employees, and the Queensland Rail Transit Authority, which was the employer in question. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal with jurisdiction over employment-related matters.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on the validity and compliance of the proposed ballot. The primary question was whether the ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the ballot notice was properly served on the employer, and whether the ballot process itself was conducted in a manner consistent with the statutory requirements. The Commission also needed to consider whether any procedural flaws rendered the ballot invalid.

In addressing these issues, the Commission examined the procedural steps taken in relation to the ballot. The Commission noted that the union had followed the formal requirements for issuing the ballot notice, including providing the employer with the requisite details. However, the Commission found that there were deficiencies in the manner in which the ballot was conducted, particularly in relation to the information provided to the employees regarding the potential consequences of the ballot. The Commission concluded that these procedural errors were significant enough to invalidate the ballot. Therefore, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements and was therefore invalid.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the proposed protected action ballot was deemed to be invalid. The Fair Work Commission did not make any further orders beyond this determination. The decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements when conducting protected action ballots, and highlighted the potential consequences for both unions and employers if these requirements are not met.

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established