DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd
(B2020/407)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 30 JULY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail Services 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 Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 30 July 2020, 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 B 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 PR721430.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (ARTIU) and UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd. The ARTIU sought to conduct a ballot of UGL Rail employees to determine their support for industrial action. UGL Rail challenged the union's right to conduct the ballot, arguing that it was not the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees in question. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether ARTIU was the appropriate representative of the employees for the purposes of conducting the ballot. UGL Rail argued that another union, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, was the appropriate representative and that ARTIU's ballot was therefore invalid. The Commission had to determine the correct bargaining agent for the employees and whether ARTIU's proposed ballot was procedurally fair and in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

In its decision, the Commission found that ARTIU was the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees in question. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission concluded that ARTIU had the necessary support of the majority of the employees and was therefore entitled to conduct the ballot. The Commission rejected UGL Rail's arguments and found that the proposed ballot was procedurally fair and in accordance with the Act.

The Commission ordered that ARTIU could proceed with the proposed ballot of UGL Rail employees. UGL Rail was directed to facilitate the ballot by providing access to the employees and allowing ARTIU to distribute ballot papers and collect the votes. The decision reinforced the importance of determining the appropriate bargaining agent in industrial relations disputes and the role of the Fair Work Commission in resolving such issues.

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