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
(B2019/1291)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 13 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority.

[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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (Respondent).

[2] The Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Thomas Whibley 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR714278.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot by the Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail was unlawful. The dispute arose from the decision by Queensland Rail to conduct a ballot among its employees to determine whether to engage in protected action. The matter was heard in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was conducted in accordance with the relevant industrial relations laws. Specifically, the Association argued that the ballot did not meet the procedural requirements set out in the applicable legislation, and therefore, was unlawful. The Commission had to determine whether the ballot process complied with the necessary legal standards and whether it was conducted in a manner that was fair and lawful.

In delivering its decision, the Commission considered the statutory framework governing industrial action ballots. It examined the specific provisions that outlined the requirements for such ballots, including notice and timing provisions. The Commission concluded that the ballot in question did not adhere to the statutory requirements, as it failed to provide adequate notice to the employees and was not conducted within the specified timeframe. As a result, the Commission found that the proposed ballot was unlawful.

Consequently, the Commission declared that the proposed industrial action ballot was unlawful. This decision provides clarity on the procedural requirements for conducting lawful industrial action ballots, reinforcing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions in the industrial relations context.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established