DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Donric Pty. Ltd. T/A Sunbury Bus Service/Sunbury Coaches
(B2019/698)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Donric Pty. Ltd. T/A Sunbury Bus Service/Sunbury Coaches.

[1] This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Donric Pty. Ltd. T/A Sunbury Bus Service/Sunbury Coaches (Respondent).

[2] On 23 August 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 Imran Malik 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 PR711653.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia contested a decision by Donric Pty. Ltd., trading as Sunbury Bus Service and Sunbury Coaches, to disallow a proposed ballot for protected industrial action by its employees. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal responsible for resolving employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought to conduct a lawful ballot among the employees of Donric to gauge support for protected action, while the employer opposed the ballot, asserting procedural and logistical concerns.

The central legal issues for the Commission to resolve included whether the employer had valid grounds to refuse the ballot and whether the Union had complied with the necessary legal requirements to conduct a ballot for protected action. The Commission had to consider the employer's objections in light of the statutory provisions governing protected actions and the procedural fairness required under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the refusal of the ballot. The Commission noted that the employer's concerns about logistical challenges and potential disruptions were not substantiated and did not outweigh the employees' right to organise and take protected action. Additionally, the Union had met the necessary requirements to conduct a ballot, including providing the requisite notice and particulars. As a result, the Commission ordered Donric Pty. Ltd. to permit the ballot to proceed as per the Union's request. The Union was granted permission to conduct the ballot, and the employer was directed to cooperate in facilitating the process.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Donric Pty. Ltd. T/A Sunbury Bus Service/Sunbury Coaches

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established