DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (NSW Branch)
v
Linfox Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/765)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does 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 Michael Collins 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 PR712382.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) brought proceedings against Linfox Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, which was subsequently appealed to the Federal Court. The union sought authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot of the employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd. Linfox opposed the union's application, arguing that the ballot was not appropriately related to a workplace dispute and was not conducted in good faith. The primary issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot was genuinely related to a workplace dispute and conducted in good faith. The court also had to consider whether the union had complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court held that the union's proposed ballot was not genuinely related to a workplace dispute as there was no evidence of a workplace dispute between the union and Linfox. The court found that the ballot was instead a strategic move by the union to gain leverage in negotiations with Linfox. The court also held that the union had not acted in good faith as it had not made a genuine and reasonable attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining. The court emphasised the importance of the good faith requirement and the need for unions to act in a manner that promotes productive industrial relations. The court found that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and dismissed the union's application.

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that protected action ballots are genuinely related to a workplace dispute and conducted in good faith. The court also emphasised the need for unions to act in a manner that promotes productive industrial relations. The court's decision is a reminder to unions to ensure that their actions are in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and that they act in a manner that promotes productive industrial relations. The union's application for authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot was dismissed.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) v Linfox Australia 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