Transport Workers Union of Australia v Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd t/as Handybin Waste Services

[2018] FWC 4996

[2018] FWC 4996

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Transport Workers Union of Australia
v
Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd t/as Handybin Waste Services
(IA2018-4603)

Waste management industry
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 30 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd t/as Handybin.

[1] On 28 August 2018, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU), made an application for a protected action ballot Order. The application was made pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made in respect of members of the TWU who are employees of Handybin Waste Services (Coffs Harbour) Pty Ltd t/as Handybin Waste Services (the employer) whose employment is to be regulated by a proposed agreement to replace the Waste Management Award 2010.

[2] The application seeks a ballot of employees of the employer who are members of the TWU who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Ray Fitzpatrick (the Statutory Declaration) dated 27 August 2018. In summary, the Statutory Declaration provided information about events involving attempts made by the TWU to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received communication dated 29 August 2018, advising that the employer opposed the application for a protected action ballot Order. Consequently, the application was listed for Hearing before the Commission in Sydney on 30 August 2018, at which time Mr A Grumley appeared for the TWU and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the employer.

[4] The determination of this matter is primarily governed by the provisions of section 443 of the Act. Section 443 is in the following terms:

“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[5] At the Hearing held today, Mr Grumley from the TWU relied upon the material contained in the Statutory Declaration. In the absence of the employer the contents the Statutory Declaration was not the subject of any significant contest.

[6] The Hearing was conducted so as to enable the employer to advance its case in opposition to the application. The employer indicated that it challenged the application upon, inter alia, the assertion that the TWU was not genuinely trying to reach an agreement. However, the employer did not provide any evidence to the Commission to support such an assertion.

[7] Consequently, I am satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with section 437 of the Act. Further, I am satisfied that the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In addition, I am satisfied that the requirements of sections 438 and 440 of the Act have also been met.

[8] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 443(1) of the Act, the Commission must make a protected action ballot Order. The Order shall be made in the terms as broadly sought by the TWU. Accordingly an Order [PR620284] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr A Grumley appearedfor the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

Noappearance for the employer.

Hearing details:

2018.

Sydney:

August, 30

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR620285>