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

[2023] FWC 1141

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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

(B2023/422)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 15 MAY 2023

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

This is an application by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, Queensland Branch (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 T/A Queensland Rail (Respondent).

On 9 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent objected to the application, however the parties were able to reach a consent position.

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 Carla Jones of the Applicant declared on 5 May 2023, 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 has been separately issued in PR761896.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, Queensland Branch, filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of the Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail. The application was lodged in the Fair Work Commission, Brisbane. The Queensland Rail Transit Authority objected to the application but subsequently, the parties reached a consent position, which led to the decision being made on the submitted papers without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues the court needed to decide centred on whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The union was required to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to negotiate with the employer and that the conditions outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been fulfilled.

In reaching the decision, the Vice President, Catanzariti, relied on the statutory declaration provided by Carla Jones of the union. The declaration detailed the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and confirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Vice President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement was met and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been adhered to. Consequently, the application was successful and an order was issued in PR761896.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established