| [2022] FWC 521 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
LC Dyson’s Bus Services Pty Ltd
(B2022/169)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of LC Dyson’s Bus Services Pty Ltd employed under AG2019/1369 LC Dyson’s Bus Services Pty Ltd Driver Enterprise Agreement 2018.
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 LC Dyson’s Bus Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
On 8 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Bob Lean 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.
An order has been separately issued in PR739138.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739137>
- AGLC
- Transport Workers' Union of Australia v LC Dyson's Bus Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 521
- Case
- [2022] FWC 521
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. The union argued that it had met the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The court needed to determine whether these requirements had been met before granting the order. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent had any objections to the application.
In this case, the court found that the union had met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was satisfied that the union had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the respondent and had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The court also found that the respondent had not objected to the application. Therefore, the court decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The court granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order.
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.