DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Greyhound Resources Pty Ltd
(B2019/1329)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Greyhound Resources Pty Ltd.

[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 Greyhound Resources Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 22 November 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 Tom Pfund 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 and Directions have been separately issued in PR714549 and PR714551 respectively.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members, and Greyhound Resources Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around the right of the union to conduct a ballot for protected action among Greyhound Resources' employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot. The court had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements and if Greyhound Resources had any grounds to object to the ballot. The central issue was whether the union's ballot notice was sufficiently detailed and whether the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Act.

The court found that the union's ballot notice met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act, as it contained the requisite information, including the nature of the proposed action, the period during which the action was proposed to occur, and a statement of the industrial dispute. The court held that the union's notice was adequate to inform the employees about the proposed action and the reasons behind it. Furthermore, the court held that the proposed action constituted protected action as it was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the court dismissed Greyhound Resources' objections to the ballot.

The court ordered that the union's proposed protected action ballot could proceed as planned. The union was authorised to conduct the ballot among Greyhound Resources' employees, and the company was directed to facilitate the process in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Greyhound Resources 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