Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v UGL Rail Services Pty Limited

[2013] FWC 99

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
UGL Rail Services Pty Limited
(B2013/7)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 8 JANUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union employed by UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (UGL).

[2] Mr David Ainger, HR Manager for UGL, advised my chambers by email on 7 January 2013 that the company does not oppose this application.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the ARTBIU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union sought to organise a protected action ballot among employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited. The union aimed to seek support for a potential industrial action, including strikes and bans on overtime, in response to certain employment conditions and disputes. UGL Rail Services opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not in accordance with the relevant industrial instruments and would cause significant disruption to their operations.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot met the necessary criteria for a lawful protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union had correctly identified the relevant employees, whether the proposed industrial action was related to a workplace dispute, and if the ballot was conducted in a manner that complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

The Fair Work Commission held that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient information to enable employees to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot, and that the proposed industrial action was not directly related to a workplace dispute. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application for a protected action ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties involved in industrial action follow the correct legal procedures to protect the rights of both employees and employers.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application for a protected action ballot. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of adherence to legal processes when organising industrial action and highlights the need for unions to provide adequate information to employees to ensure informed participation in such actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established