The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

Case [2023] FWC 1156


[2023] FWC 1156

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v

Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

(B2023/440)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail

  1. This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, 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 Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (Respondent).

  1. On 11 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Annalese Jack of the Applicant declared on 10 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.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR761948.


VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761949>

Details
AGLC
The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail [2023] FWC 1156
Case
[2023] FWC 1156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APSEMMA) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against the Queensland Rail Transit Authority trading as Queensland Rail. The dispute concerns a proposed protected action ballot of certain employees of the respondent. The Fair Work Commission was notified on 11 May 2023 that the respondent did not oppose the application, and accordingly, the Vice President Catanzariti decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The application for a protected action ballot order was made based on the statutory declaration of Annalese Jack of APSEMMA, which outlined the steps taken by the applicant in bargaining with the respondent and the fact that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and if the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court considered the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Annalese Jack of APSEMMA, to determine if the applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondent. The court also had to determine if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met.

The court found that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court was satisfied that APSEMMA had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondent, and that the proposed protected action ballot of certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority trading as Queensland Rail was necessary. The court issued an order in PR761948, granting the application for a protected action ballot order.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted APSEMMA's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority trading as Queensland Rail. The court found that the applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondent, and that the proposed protected action ballot was necessary. The court also determined that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. An order was issued in PR761948, granting the application for a protected action ballot order.

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.