The Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 2324
[2022] FWC 2324

FAIR WORK COMMISSION
DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union
v

Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd

(B2022/1278)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd

  1. This is an application by the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (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 Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd (Respondent).

  1. 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 Martin McEvilly of the Applicant declared on 25 August 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.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR745395.


VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR745396>

Details
AGLC
The Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2324
Case
[2022] FWC 2324
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Maritime Officers' Union sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission in relation to certain employees of Transdev Sydney Ferries Pty Ltd. This application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent did not oppose the application. The matter was determined by Vice President Catanzariti on 1 September 2022.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. The applicant needed to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been observed. The Vice President was satisfied that these requirements had been met based on the material provided, including the statutory declaration of Martin McEvilly of the Applicant.

Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been satisfied. The Vice President noted that the applicant had provided a statutory declaration confirming that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent. Furthermore, the Vice President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been observed. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot order was successful.

An order was issued in PR745395. The final orders of the court are not detailed in the provided text, but the successful application for a protected action ballot order would typically allow the applicant to proceed with a ballot of its members regarding the proposed protected action.

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.