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
(B2020/110)

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 PR717111.

VICE PRESIDENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of the Queensland Rail Transit Authority Trading as Queensland Rail. The dispute arose from the union's assertion that the employer had breached an enterprise agreement by implementing changes to shift patterns without proper consultation. The Fair Work Commission was called upon to decide on the dispute.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the employer had breached the enterprise agreement by not providing adequate notice and consultation regarding the proposed changes, and whether the proposed protected action was lawful. The union argued that the employer's actions constituted a breach of the agreement and necessitated the ballot. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the changes were within their rights under the enterprise agreement and that the ballot was not justified.

The Commission found that the employer had indeed breached the enterprise agreement by not providing the required notice and consultation regarding the shift changes. The Commission held that the employer's actions constituted a breach of the agreement, and that the proposed protected action ballot was therefore justified. The union was permitted to proceed with the ballot. The employer was ordered to provide the necessary notice and consultation regarding the proposed changes and to negotiate in good faith with the union.

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the union, permitting the proposed protected action ballot to proceed. The employer was directed to comply with the enterprise agreement by providing the required notice and consultation regarding the proposed shift changes, and to negotiate in good faith with the union.

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