Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Chubb Security Services Ltd

[2013] FWC 9023

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
Chubb Security Services Ltd
(B2013/1426)

COMMISSIONER CARGILL

SYDNEY, 18 NOVEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Chubb Security Services Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Chubb Security Services Ltd.

[2] My associate was advised by a representative of the respondent that it had been served with the application and that the respondent would advance no substantive ground of opposition to an order being made (that is, the respondent did not challenge that the TWU had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement). This has been confirmed in emailed correspondence. The ACT Sub-branch Secretary of the TWU has provided a Statement addressing the statutory grounds.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR544622] based on the draft order provided by the TWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Chubb Security Services Ltd was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission and the company argued that the ballot did not meet the requirements for protected action. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the ballot met the statutory criteria for protected action. The Court examined whether the ballot notice specified the kind of action proposed, the date and place of the ballot, and the names of the employees affected. The Court also considered whether the proposed action related to a workplace dispute and was reasonably likely to result in industrial action. Another issue was whether the ballot was conducted in good faith.

The Court found that the ballot notice did not specify the kind of action proposed with sufficient detail, which was necessary for it to be protected action. The notice did not provide enough information for employees to understand the specific actions that were being proposed. The Court also found that the ballot did not meet the requirement for reasonable likelihood of resulting in industrial action. The Court concluded that the ballot did not specify the action in a way that employees could reasonably be expected to take protected action based on the information provided.

Accordingly, the Court held that the proposed ballot was not protected action. The Fair Work Commission and Chubb Security Services Ltd were entitled to take steps to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The Court did not make any orders as the matter was resolved by its findings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established