Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Queensland Rail

[2023] FWC 1128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v

Queensland Rail

(B2023/430)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail

This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (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 Queensland Rail (Respondent).

On 9 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent objected to the application, however, the parties were able to reach a consent position.

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 Peter Jason Young of the Applicant declared on 8 May 2023, 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 PR761845.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application made by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Queensland Rail (Respondent). Queensland Rail initially objected to the application; however, the parties were able to reach a consent position. Consequently, the Vice President Catanzariti determined the matter on the submitted papers without a hearing.

The legal issues the court had to decide revolved around whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was appropriate and whether the statutory requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The determination hinged on verifying that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the necessary steps for the ballot were correctly followed.

The Vice President was satisfied based on the material provided, including a statutory declaration from Peter Jason Young of the Applicant, that the statutory requirements were met and that the notification period was correctly observed. The declaration outlined the bargaining steps taken by the Applicant and confirmed their genuine efforts to reach an agreement with Queensland Rail. As such, the court found that the application met the legal criteria for a protected action ballot order.

An Order has been issued separately in PR761845, formalising the court's decision. This order reflects the consent reached by the parties and ensures the procedural requirements for the protected action ballot are met.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established