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

[2022] FWC 2056

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

(B2022/1167)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 AUGUST 2022

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

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 Services Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 2 August 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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 declaration of Mr Hayden Boyle 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR744465.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR744464>s

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (Respondent). The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent regarding a proposed agreement, but had been unable to do so. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was determined by the Deputy President on the papers without a hearing. The Deputy President concluded that the requirements for a protected action ballot were met, and issued the relevant order.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had met the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to conduct a protected action ballot. The union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that a notification time was in relation to the proposed agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the court was required to determine whether the union had met the relevant criteria to conduct the ballot.

The court considered the material before it, including the declaration of Mr Hayden Boyle of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the Respondent. The court was satisfied that the union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that a notification time was in relation to the proposed agreement. The court also found that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court therefore concluded that the union was entitled to conduct a protected action ballot.

The court issued an order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, permitting the union to conduct a protected action ballot in relation to the proposed agreement. The order was issued in PR744465. The court did not make any orders in relation to the substantive dispute between the parties, as the focus of the application was on the procedural issue of the protected action ballot.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established