Australian Workers' Union v Sydney Trains

[2022] FWC 615

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

Sydney Trains

(B2022/192)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Sydney Trains (Respondent).

On 16 March 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Steve Ackerman of the Applicant declared on 4 March 2022, 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 PR739477.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) lodged an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking an order for a protected action ballot of certain employees of Sydney Trains. The AWU sought the order following an unsuccessful negotiation period with Sydney Trains, and a desire to take protected industrial action. Sydney Trains did not oppose the application, and the FWC Vice President, Catanzariti, determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The central legal issue for the FWC was whether the AWU had fulfilled the requirements under the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the FWU needed to satisfy the FWC that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the AWU had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Sydney Trains. The FWU submitted that it had fulfilled these requirements, and provided a statutory declaration from Steve Ackerman, a representative of the AWU, to support this assertion.

In making its decision, the FWC considered the statutory declaration from the AWU and the fact that Sydney Trains did not oppose the application. The FWC was satisfied that the AWU had met the requirements of the Act, including that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the AWU had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Sydney Trains. As a result, the FWC issued an order for a protected action ballot to proceed.

The FWC's decision highlights the importance of meeting the legal requirements for protected industrial action, and the role of the FWC in facilitating this process. The FWC's decision also demonstrates the importance of a cooperative approach to industrial relations, where both parties work together to reach an agreement. In this case, the FWC's decision was made without the need for a hearing, which may save time and resources for both parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established