Transport Workers' Union of Australia

Case [2016] FWC 4203


[2016] FWC 4203
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 459 - Application to extend the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
(B2016/650)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2016

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2016/489 - extension granted.

[1] On 22 June 2016, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the ‘Union’) lodged an application pursuant to s 459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) to extend the period in which certain industrial action may be taken in respect of the protected action ballot order made by Senior Deputy President Hamberger on 28 April 2016 [PR579663] for a further 30 days. The respondent employer is Remondis Australia Pty Ltd.

[2] The provisions governing the grant of such an extension are set out in s 459 of the Act as follows:

    459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

    (1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:

      (a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and

      (b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and

      (c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and

      (d) the action commences:

        (i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or

        (ii) if the FWC has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.

    (2) If:

      (a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and

      (b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;
      then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

    (3) The FWC may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:

      (a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to the FWC for the period to be extended; and

      (b) the period has not previously been extended.’

[3] On 24 June 2016, I directed my Associate to write to the respondent’s solicitor, Mr N Chadwick to determine whether the respondent formally objected to the extensions sought by the Union. On 27 June 2016, Mr Chadwick responded on behalf of his client that the making the orders sought was a matter for the Commission.

[4] As the application is properly before the Commission and the period has not previously been extended. I am satisfied that the two factual preconditions set out in s 459(3) have been met. In my view, there are no discretionary reasons why the application should not be granted. Accordingly, I will order that the 30 day period which ends on 25 June 2016 be extended by a further thirty days. An order to that effect will be issued contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR582099>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia [2016] FWC 4203
Case
[2016] FWC 4203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU) sought an extension to the 30-day period provided by the Fair Work Act 2009 for lodging an application for review of a decision made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The TWU argued that the 30-day period should be extended to allow it to pursue its application for review.

The central legal issue was whether the Court should exercise its discretion to extend the statutory 30-day period for lodging an application for judicial review of a decision made by the FWC. The TWU contended that it had not unreasonably delayed in lodging the application and that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. The primary consideration was whether the delay was unreasonable and whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify the extension.

The Court found that the TWU's delay in lodging the application was not unreasonable, as it had acted promptly once it became aware of the FWC's decision. The Court also found that there were exceptional circumstances, including the complexity of the matter and the need for the TWU to consult with its members. Consequently, the Court granted the TWU's application to extend the 30-day period. As a result, the TWU was permitted to lodge its application for judicial review outside the prescribed timeframe.

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.