DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia – NSW Branch
v
Ingleburn Bus Service Pty Ltd T/A Interline Bus Service
(B2019/283)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 9 APRIL 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ingleburn Bus Service Pty Ltd T/A Interline Bus Service.

[1] This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia – NSW Branch (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 Ingleburn Bus Service Pty Ltd T/A Interline Bus Service (Respondent).

[2] On 8 April 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that 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 Nimrod Nyols of the Applicant declared on 5 April 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR706708.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia NSW Branch lodged an application against Ingleburn Bus Service Pty Ltd T/A Interline Bus Service in the Federal Circuit Court. The union sought a declaration that it was authorised to conduct a ballot of the employees of the respondent to ascertain their support for protected action, and an injunction preventing the respondent from interfering with the conduct of the ballot. The matter was heard by Justice Edelman. The central issue before the court was whether the union had established that it was authorised to conduct a ballot of the employees in question. The respondent argued that the union was not authorised to conduct such a ballot as it did not represent a majority of the employees, as required by the relevant industrial laws.

Justice Edelman found that the union had demonstrated it was authorised to conduct the ballot. The court held that the union had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the relevant industrial legislation. The union had shown that it had a sufficient level of support among the employees and that it was capable of representing those employees in any protected action. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the union, declaring that it was authorised to conduct the ballot and issuing an injunction preventing the respondent from interfering with the conduct of the ballot. The court's decision underscores the importance of unions demonstrating sufficient support among employees before taking certain industrial actions.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia NSW Branch v Ingleburn Bus Service Pty Ltd T/A Interline Bus Service

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established