DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Sydney Trains
(B2021/698)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (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).

[2] On 20 August 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Robyn Fortescue of the Applicant declared on 19 August 2021, 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 PR733083.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a declaration from the Federal Court that the proposed industrial action by Sydney Trains employees was lawful. Sydney Trains, in turn, argued that the proposed protected action was not in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the proposed protected action ballot.

The central issue before the court was whether the proposed protected action ballot was in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the ballot notice was properly issued, whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that complied with the Act, and whether the proposed action met the requirements for protected action. The court also had to determine whether the proposed action was genuinely for the purposes of a dispute of interest between employees and their employer.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the proposed protected action ballot was in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the ballot notice was properly issued, that the ballot was conducted in a manner that complied with the Act, and that the proposed action met the requirements for protected action. The court also found that the proposed action was genuinely for the purposes of a dispute of interest between employees and their employer. Accordingly, the court declared that the proposed protected action ballot was lawful.

In light of the court's findings, the AMWU was entitled to proceed with the proposed protected action ballot. Sydney Trains was unable to prevent the ballot from proceeding, and was required to take such steps as were necessary to facilitate the ballot in accordance with the court's declaration. The court did not make any orders beyond declaring the proposed protected action ballot to be lawful.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Sydney Trains

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established