| [2023] FWC 1883 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v
Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail
(B2023/770)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON | ADELAIDE, 1 AUGUST 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail
This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (Queensland Rail or Employer).
On 31 July 2023, the Commission was advised that Queensland Rail, in effect, did not object to 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 declaration of Ms Annalese Jack, APESMA Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the APESMA in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Queensland Rail, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
The ballot is to be conducted by the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS). CiVS has recently been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s 468A of the Act[1] and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) and s.448A(2) of the Act, a ballot period of ten (10) working days from the date of the Order (1 August 2023) has been determined by the Commission.
Following consultation with the parties, various editorial changes were made to the original draft order.[2]
An Order has been separately issued in PR764732.
This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference and this Member will issue the Order requiring attendance at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS [2023] FWC 1400
[2] APESMA advised it did not object to the various editorial changes and no objections were raised by the Employer.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR764733>
- AGLC
- The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail [2023] FWC 1883
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1883
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the conditions stipulated in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were met, specifically whether there was a notification time for the proposed agreement and whether APESMA had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Queensland Rail. The Commission found that the declaration by Ms Annalese Jack, APESMA Organiser, demonstrated that APESMA had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and that all requirements under section 443(1) had been satisfied.
Given the satisfaction of the legal criteria, the Deputy President Hampton granted the application and ordered that a ballot be conducted by the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS), an approved ballot agent under section 468A of the Act. The ballot period was set at ten working days from the date of the order, 1 August 2023. The order also included various editorial changes following consultation with the parties, and a separate order was issued in PR764732. The matter was to be assigned to another member of the Commission for a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act, with directions likely to be issued to ensure meaningful negotiations between the parties.
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.