| [2016] FWC 2564 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.459 - Application to extend the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot
Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd
(B2016/478)
COMMISSIONER SPENCER | BRISBANE, 21 APRIL 2016 |
Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2016/287.
[1] On 21 April 2016, 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 of the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised by the protected action ballot order, made by the Commission as currently constituted on 18 February 2016 [PR577220] and [PR577260], for a further 30 days. The Respondent is Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
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 24 March 2016.
[5] On 21 April 2016, Directions were issued for the Respondent to advise whether they objected to the Application.
[6] On 21 April 2016, Ms Kate Greig, 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. On the basis of the legislative tests set out in s.459(3) being met, an order will therefore issue that the 30 day period, which currently ends on 22 April 2016, be extended by a further 30 days.
[8] An Order to that effect will be issued separately [PR579382].
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR579381>
- AGLC
- Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 2564
- Case
- [2016] FWC 2564
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the 30-day period should be extended under the specific circumstances presented by the union. The union argued that due to unforeseen circumstances and procedural complexities, they needed more time to adequately prepare their case. The union also submitted that the extension was necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute. Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd opposed the application, asserting that the union had sufficient time to address the issues and that granting an extension would unduly delay the proceedings.
In delivering the decision, the court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The union's submissions were evaluated in light of the procedural complexities and the need for fairness in the resolution of the dispute. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their cases adequately. The court concluded that the union had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the extension and that the overall interests of justice would be served by granting the additional time. The court therefore allowed the application and extended the 30-day period by a further 30 days.
The final orders of the court were that the 30-day period, which was set to end on 22 April 2016, be extended by a further 30 days. This decision allowed the union additional time to address the procedural matters and prepare their case, thereby ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute.
Orders
Orders of the court
Issue that the 30 day period, which currently ends on 22 April 2016, be extended by a further 30 days
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.