DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
Sydney Trains
(C2020/3044)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

BRISBANE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Appeal against decision [[2020] FWC 1457] of Deputy President Bull at Sydney on 9 April 2020 in matter number C2019/2880.

1. Background

[1] This is an appeal, for which permission is required, by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU or the Appellant) against a decision of Deputy President Bull [2020] FWC 1457, issued on 9 April 2020 (Decision). The Decision concerned a dispute between the RTBU and Sydney Trains (Respondent) conducted under the terms of the dispute resolution procedure of the Sydney Trains Enterprise Agreement 2018 (Agreement).

[2] The dispute between the parties was fundamentally about the decision of Sydney Trains to remove the existing Gate Array Control known as the ‘Garrison’ or GAC Booth (GAC) from the paid concourse area of the Liverpool Railway Station in the south-west of Sydney (Liverpool Station) and install a ‘Hub’. The Hub intended to be installed by Sydney Trains is a stainless-steel workstation which allows employees to access Sydney Trains’ information systems on the platforms and the paid concourse of the station and provide face to face customer service.

[3] The RTBU opposed the removal of the GAC before the Deputy President on the basis that the decision by Sydney Trains did not “comply” with clause 35 of the Agreement and/or with the Respondent’s obligations under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act), and/or that the Respondent’s removal of the GAC was unreasonable in all the circumstances. The Appellant also sought at first instance an order that the Respondent not remove the GAC at Liverpool station until such time as an acceptable alternative was constructed.

[4] The application for the Commission to deal with the dispute was made under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). There was no contest before us that the Commission had the necessary jurisdiction to determine the outcome of the dispute given the operation of the FW Act and the terms of the Agreement. 1

2. The Decision

[5] Having set out the background to the matter, including that Hubs have been introduced across Sydney Trains’ network since July 2013 2 and that the Deputy President was assisted by an inspection conducted at Liverpool Station,3 and setting out the positions and evidence of each party, the Deputy President summarised the justification for the decision taken by Sydney trains as follows:

“[71] Sydney Trains wishes to make structural changes to the Liverpool Station following the introduction of new technology, increased patronage and its emphasis on customer service. This is said to necessitate the removal of the GAC to allow for installation of a glass wall and additional Opal gates,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Sydney Trains

Details

AGLC: Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Sydney Trains [2020] FWCFB 4178
Case: [2020] FWCFB 4178
Decision Date: 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) sought review of a decision made by Deputy President Bull of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which had dismissed the RTBU's unfair dismissal claim. Sydney Trains, the respondent, opposed the review. The central dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to the termination of an employee's employment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues for the court to resolve were whether the FWC correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and whether the FWC's decision was unreasonable. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the FWC erred in its interpretation of the provisions governing procedural fairness and the applicable legislative framework. The RTBU argued that the FWC had overlooked critical evidence and misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the FWC's reasoning and the evidence presented. The court found that the FWC had not erred in its interpretation of the Fair Work Act. It held that the FWC's decision was not unreasonable, as it had properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The RTBU's arguments regarding procedural fairness and the application of the law were not persuasive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision of the FWC remained in place, and the dismissal of the employee was upheld.

Orders