DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
v
V/Line Corporation
(B2019/1241)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of V/Line Corporation.

[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 V/Line Corporation (Respondent).

[2] On 31 October 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Chrysostomou 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 PR713868

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union brought proceedings against V/Line Corporation, contesting the employer's refusal to allow a ballot of its employees regarding potential industrial action. The Fair Work Commission, acting in its capacity as an industrial court, was tasked with resolving the dispute. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether V/Line Corporation had lawfully exercised its discretion to prevent the Union from conducting the ballot. The dispute hinged on the interpretation of section 315 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which grants employers the authority to refuse balloting access under specific circumstances.

The Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the proposed industrial action and V/Line Corporation's reasons for refusing the ballot. It considered whether the employer's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Union argued that the employer's refusal was arbitrary and not justified under the law. Conversely, V/Line Corporation contended that the ballot could disrupt essential services and that the potential industrial action would have a significant adverse effect on the public. The Commission carefully weighed the competing interests and the statutory framework governing the issue. Ultimately, it found that V/Line Corporation's refusal to allow the ballot was justified, given the potential impact on public services and the employer's obligation to maintain operational efficiency. The decision was grounded in the specific context of the public transport services provided by V/Line Corporation and the broader implications for the public.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that V/Line Corporation had acted within its legal rights in refusing the ballot. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the particular circumstances of the case. The Union's application for an order permitting the ballot was dismissed. This outcome reflects the careful balance that must be struck between the rights of employees to engage in industrial action and the employer's duty to ensure the continuity of essential services. The decision reinforces the importance of considering the broader public interest when assessing disputes related to industrial action in the transport sector.

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v v/Line Corporation

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established