National Union of Workers v Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Global Logistics

[2019] FWC 6910

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers

Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Global Logistics

(B2019/1163)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 7 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Toll Transport Pty Ltd

This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Toll Transport Pty Ltd T/A Toll Global Logistics (Respondent).

On 7 October 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms M Segan of the Applicant 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 PR713087.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers (the Applicant) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Toll Transport Pty Ltd trading as Toll Global Logistics (the Respondent). The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving workplace disputes under the Fair Work Act. The Applicant sought to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action among the employees due to the ongoing negotiations with the Respondent, which had not resulted in a satisfactory agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the statutory prerequisites for a protected action ballot order were met and if the notification period for the proposed agreement had been observed. Specifically, the Applicant had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the statutory notification period had been adhered to, as required by section 443(1) of the Act. The Respondent did not object to the application, which facilitated the determination of the case on the presented documents.

The Deputy President concluded that the Applicant had satisfied the conditions stipulated in the Act for a protected action ballot order. This conclusion was based on the statutory declaration provided by Ms. M Segan of the Applicant, which detailed the bargaining process and affirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Deputy President was satisfied that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the application was approved, and an order was issued in accordance with the statutory requirements.

The final orders issued by the Commission allowed the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot among the employees, as per the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The decision underscores the importance of the notification period and the necessity for genuine bargaining efforts before protected industrial action can be undertaken.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established