Q Drivers First T/A Professional Drivers Association of Australia v Transit (NSW) Services Pty Ltd and Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 838

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Q Drivers First T/A Professional Drivers Association of Australia

Transit (NSW) Services Pty Ltd and Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/288)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Transit (NSW) Services Pty Ltd and Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Q Drivers First T/A Professional Drivers Association 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 Transit (NSW) Services Pty Ltd and Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 8 April 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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 Darren Dickson of the Applicant declared on 7 April 2022, 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 PR740275.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Q Drivers First T/A Professional Drivers Association of Australia applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing it to hold a ballot of its employees in relation to protected action against Transit (NSW) Services Pty Ltd and Transit Systems West Services Pty Ltd. The application was brought under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the respondents did not oppose the application. The Commission decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, and whether there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission considered the statutory declaration of Darren Dickson of the applicant, setting out the steps taken by the applicant in bargaining with the respondents, and that the applicant had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement with the respondents. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) and that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement.

The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, and that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. An order was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act allowing the applicant to hold a ballot of its employees in relation to protected action against the respondents.

This decision provides guidance to employers and employees on the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act, and the process for applying for such an order. Employers and employees should be aware of their rights and obligations under the Act, and seek legal advice if necessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established