The Australian Workers' Union v Altus Traffic Pty. Ltd

[2017] FWC 5566

[2017] FWC 5566

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Altus Traffic Pty. Ltd.
(B2017/1006)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK MELBOURNE, 27 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Altus Traffic Pty. Ltd.

[1] This is an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Altus Traffic Pty. Ltd. (Respondent).

[2] On 25 October 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent objected to the application on the grounds that:

(a) The group or groups of employees to be balloted was not limited to members of the Applicant who have not appointed someone else as their bargaining representative; and

(b) The scope of the proposed industrial action being “unlimited” in number was expansive.

[3] In response, the Applicant advised that it was amenable to amending the proposed coverage of the order, but not the scope of the industrial action. The Respondent then indicated that it consented to this and the Applicant filed an amended application.

[4] At 5.01pm on 25 October 2017, my associate wrote to the parties indicating that I was not satisfied with the consent wording proposed by the parties for the coverage of the order and I advanced some alternative wording. The Applicant indicated that it consented to the wording I advanced, but the Respondent did not.

[5] On 26 October 2017, my associate wrote to the Respondent indicating that I was not satisfied with the coverage clause as originally proposed by the parties and I requested the Respondent to indicate whether it wanted to be heard in relation to its objection or whether it consented to the wording I proposed. At 2.57pm on 26 October 2017, the Respondent advised my associate that it consented to the wording I proposed.

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

[7] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr N Blackford 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.

[8] An order has been separately issued in PR597137.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR597136>