Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Hornibrook Transit Management Pty Ltd T/A Hornibrook Group of Companies

Case [2017] FWC 560


[2017] FWC 560
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION



Fair Work Act 2009

s.459—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Hornibrook Transit Management Pty Ltd T/A Hornibrook Group of Companies
(B2017/99)

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 25 JANUARY 2017

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2016/1022.

[1] On 20 January 2017, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the Union/Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), pursuant to s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Union has applied for an extension to the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by the protected action ballot order, made by the Commission as currently constituted on 22 November 2016 [PR587659]). This application seeks an extension pursuant to s.459(3) for a further 30 days. The Respondent is Hornibrook Transit Management Pty Ltd T/A Hornibrook Group of Companies.

Legislation

[2] The provisions governing the grant of such an extension are set out in s.459 of the Act as follows:

    459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

    (1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:

      (a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and

      (b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and

      (c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and

      (d) the action commences:

        (i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or

        (ii) if the FWC has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.

    (2) If:

      (a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and

      (b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;

    then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

    (3) The FWC may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:

      (a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to the FWC for the period to be extended; and

      (b) the period has not previously been extended.

[3] Section 459(3) of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission as to whether to grant such an application upon satisfaction as to the two factual preconditions set out in sub-sections (a) and (b). The two preconditions in section 459(3) of the Act for the Commission to exercise its discretion and make the order sought are as follows; namely, an application (this application) has to be made to extend the 30 day period; and the period has not previously been extended.

[4] The result of the ballot ordered by the Commission was declared by the Australian Electoral Commission on 22 December 2016.

[5] On 20 January 2017, Directions were issued for the Respondent to advise whether they objected to the Application.

[6] On 25 January 2017, Mr Rolf Mitchell, State Manager Qld, on behalf of the Respondent, corresponded with my chambers in relation to the application and indicated that the Respondent has no objection to the extension.

[7] The Applicant for the protected action ballot order has applied to the Commission for the period to be extended and I am satisfied that the period has not previously been extended.

[8] On the basis that the legislative tests set out in s.459(3) have been met, a further Order will therefore issue that the 30 day period, authorised by the prior Order, is extended in accordance with s.459(1)(d)(i), by a further 29 days from 21 January 2017 (the end of the 30 day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot on 22 December 2016).

[9] An Order to that effect will be issued separately [PR589732].

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR589728>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Hornibrook Transit Management Pty Ltd T/A Hornibrook Group of Companies [2017] FWC 560
Case
[2017] FWC 560
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members, and Hornibrook Transit Management Pty Ltd T/A Hornibrook Group of Companies. The union sought an extension of the 30-day period within which to file an application to the Commission for review of a decision. The application pertained to a matter identified as B2016/1022, which was originally decided by the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission had set a 30-day period for any party to apply for a review of its decision, and the union sought to extend this period.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union was entitled to an extension of the 30-day period to file its application for review. The union argued that it was unable to meet the deadline due to circumstances beyond its control and sought an extension based on the principle of equity and the need for procedural fairness. The company opposed the application, asserting that the statutory timeframes were clear and should be strictly adhered to, and any deviation could potentially undermine the efficiency and finality of the review process.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant statutory provisions governing the timeframe for filing an application for review. It also took into account the principle of procedural fairness and the potential consequences of extending the deadline. The court ultimately determined that the union's application for an extension should be granted. It found that the union had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the extension, including the need for a fair opportunity to prepare and present its case. The court's decision recognised the importance of procedural fairness while also acknowledging the statutory framework within which it operates.

The court ordered that the 30-day period for the union to file its application for review of the decision in B2016/1022 be extended by a specified number of days. This extension allowed the union to adequately prepare and submit its application, ensuring that the principles of procedural fairness and justice were upheld. The decision balanced the need for timely resolution of disputes with the requirement to provide fair process to all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.