| [2023] FWC 1107 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail
(B2023/418)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 10 MAY 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail
This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy 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 Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A 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 Kane Lowth 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 PR761783.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761784>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail [2023] FWC 1107
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The employer objected to the application, but the parties reached a consent position, allowing the matter to proceed without a hearing. The Vice President was required to determine whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met.
The Vice President concluded that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer, as evidenced by the statutory declaration of Kane Lowth of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer. The Vice President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, and the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Consequently, the Vice President decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. An Order has been separately issued in PR761783.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that a protected action ballot order be issued in favour of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The order was based on the Vice President's determination that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The order was issued separately in PR761783.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.