| [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
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).
On 11 May 2023, 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 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.
An Order has been separately issued in PR761948.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761949>
- 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 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.