Australian Workers' Union v Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 5012

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protection action ballot order

Australian Workers’ Union

Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd
(IA2018-4602)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 29 August 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd.

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ 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 Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 29 August 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Weissmann 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 PR620323.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR620322>

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides the legal framework for industrial disputes in Australia. The respondent, Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd, did not object to the application, and as such, the Deputy President, Gostencnik, determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The matter was resolved in Melbourne on 29 August 2018.

The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 outlines the criteria for a protected action ballot order, including the requirement that the applicant has been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer. The Deputy President was satisfied, based on the material before them, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Weissmann of the Applicant, that the applicant had met these criteria.

The Deputy President concluded that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Deputy President was satisfied with the evidence presented by the applicant, including the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent and the genuine efforts to reach an agreement. As a result, the Deputy President determined to grant the protected action ballot order in relation to the employees of Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd.

An order has been separately issued in PR620323, granting the protected action ballot order. This decision allows the Australian Workers’ Union to proceed with a ballot of its members to determine whether they wish to take protected industrial action against Trafficca Road Services Pty Ltd. The order provides a legal framework for the union to take action, if deemed necessary, in pursuit of better working conditions and terms for its members.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established