DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
UGL Rail Pty Ltd
(B2021/413)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd.

[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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 June 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Bryan Evans of the Applicant 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR730665.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union sought an order against UGL Rail Pty Ltd, seeking to compel the company to allow the union to conduct a ballot of its members for the purpose of organising protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s workplace relations tribunal. The union argued that the company had unreasonably refused to allow the ballot, which would have been held to ascertain the employees' views on potential industrial action. UGL Rail Pty Ltd countered that the ballot was not necessary and that the union's request was unreasonable, particularly given the current industrial climate and the potential impact on business operations.

The central issue before the Commission was whether UGL Rail Pty Ltd had acted unreasonably in denying the union's request to conduct a ballot. This involved assessing the balance between the union's right to organise and communicate with its members and the company's rights under workplace laws, which include the right to manage its business without undue interference. The Commission also considered the potential impact of the ballot on the company's operations and the broader industrial environment.

The Fair Work Commission found that UGL Rail Pty Ltd had not acted unreasonably in refusing the union's request to conduct a ballot. The Commission held that the union had not provided sufficient justification for the ballot, particularly in the context of the company’s operations and the existing industrial relations framework. The Commission noted that the union had not demonstrated a clear need for the ballot, and that the potential disruption to the company's business outweighed any benefits to the union's members. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application.

As a result of the decision, UGL Rail Pty Ltd was not required to allow the union to conduct the proposed ballot of its employees. The Commission’s decision emphasised the importance of balancing union rights with the rights of employers to manage their businesses effectively and without unnecessary industrial action.

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v UGL Rail Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established