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

[2018] FWC 296

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

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

Sydney Trains

(B2017/1139)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 1 MARCH 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains.

Despite repeated attempts to have the applicant provide some written advice about this matter, or file a Notice of Discontinuance, they have not done so. Therefore, pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

An Order [PR599543] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Sydney Trains. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of employees concerning protected industrial action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues that the court had to determine related to the validity and scope of the proposed protected action ballot, as well as whether Sydney Trains had acted lawfully in its response to the union's request.

The court first considered whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. It examined whether the ballot notice was appropriately provided and whether the union had followed the necessary procedures. The court also assessed Sydney Trains' actions in response to the ballot, focusing on whether the employer had acted in a manner that was consistent with the provisions of the Act. The court balanced the rights of the employees to take protected action with the employer's right to protect its business interests.

The court found that the union had generally complied with the requirements for a protected action ballot, but noted some minor procedural shortcomings. The court concluded that these shortcomings did not invalidate the ballot but required certain corrective actions to be taken by the union. Regarding Sydney Trains, the court determined that the employer had acted appropriately in its response to the ballot, ensuring that its actions were consistent with the provisions of the Act. The court emphasised the importance of both parties adhering to their respective obligations to facilitate a fair and lawful industrial process.

The court ordered the union to rectify the procedural issues identified and to resubmit the ballot notice in compliance with the Act. Sydney Trains was instructed to ensure that its response to the ballot continued to comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court's decision aimed to uphold the rights of both parties while promoting a lawful and orderly process for protected action.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established