DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
STA Traffic Management Pty Ltd
(B2019/1127)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of STA Traffic Management 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 STA Traffic Management Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 24 September 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Weissmann 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 PR712769.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought an order in the Fair Work Commission to permit a ballot of STA Traffic Management Pty Ltd employees to determine if they wished to engage in protected action. STA Traffic Management, in turn, sought to prevent the ballot on the basis that the dispute was not a "workplace dispute" as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was called upon to determine the nature of the dispute and whether it fell within the legislative definition of a "workplace dispute".

The central issue was whether the dispute related to the terms and conditions of employment of STA Traffic Management employees. STA Traffic Management argued that the proposed action was not protected because it did not concern their employees, but rather employees of a subcontractor. The Union contended that the dispute was about the terms and conditions of employment of the STA Traffic Management employees, given that the proposed action would affect the business of STA Traffic Management and their employees.

The Commission held that the dispute was a workplace dispute because it concerned the terms and conditions of employment of STA Traffic Management employees. The proposed action would impact the business of STA Traffic Management and therefore, its employees. The Commission found that the dispute was about the terms and conditions of employment of the STA Traffic Management employees, despite the fact that the employees involved in the dispute were employed by a subcontractor. The Commission concluded that the proposed action was protected action and ordered that a ballot be held.

The Commission ordered that a ballot of STA Traffic Management employees be held to determine if they wished to engage in protected action. The Commission found that the dispute was a workplace dispute and that the proposed action was protected action. The Commission's decision highlights the importance of considering the broader impact of proposed action on an employer's business when determining whether a dispute is a workplace dispute.

The Australian Workers' Union v STA Traffic Management Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established