DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Toll Transport Pty Ltd
(B2016/1123)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 25 OCTOBER 2016

Application to revoke order made in B2016/1074.

[1] On 6 October 2016 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a Protected Action Ballot Order [PR586186] (Original Order) following an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW). On 24 October 2016 the NUW made an application to revoke the Original Order.

[2] Section 448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) states:

“448 Revocation of protected action ballot order

(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to the FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.

(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, the FWC must revoke the order.”

[3] Voting in the protected action ballot pursuant to the Original Order was to close 20 working days from the date the Original Order was issued, 6 October 2016. That means voting in the protected action ballot is due to close on 3 November 2016.

[4] Because the NUW has applied to revoke the Original Order before voting in the protected action ballot has closed, pursuant to section 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Original Order.

[5] An Order [PR586871] to this effect will issue concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the National Union of Workers sought to revoke an order previously made in the case B2016/1074 involving Toll Transport Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the union's request to overturn a decision that had implications for the terms and conditions of employment for certain workers within the company. The Commission was tasked with reviewing the application to determine whether the circumstances had sufficiently changed to warrant a revocation of the original order.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant had demonstrated that there had been a significant change in circumstances since the original order was made, justifying its revocation. This involved a careful analysis of the evidence presented by the union regarding the changes in the operational environment of Toll Transport Pty Ltd and how these changes affected the workers' conditions. Additionally, the Commission had to consider the potential impact of revoking the order on the workers, the employer, and the broader industrial relations landscape.

The Commission deliberated on the application, assessing the evidence provided by the union and considering the legal principles applicable to such revocations. After evaluating the arguments and the evidence, the Commission concluded that the union had not sufficiently demonstrated a significant change in circumstances that would warrant the revocation of the order. The decision was based on a detailed examination of the current operational context and the stability of the workers' conditions since the original order was made. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for revocation, upholding the original order. This decision was made with a focus on maintaining fairness and stability in the industrial relations framework.

National Union of Workers v Toll Transport Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established