Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd, Prosegur Australia Pty Limited and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 2912


[2025] FWC 2912

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd, Prosegur Australia Pty Limited and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd

(B2025/1531)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT

SYDNEY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd, Prosegur Australia Pty Limited and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd – non-AEC ballot agent electronic voting

  1. This is an application by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia acting through its NSW/QLD/VIC/TAS (Interim Governance) Branch (TWU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd (Linfox), Prosegur Australia Pty Limited (Prosegur) and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd (Point 2 Point), collectively the Employers.

  1. Linfox is the parent company of the employers referenced above. On 30 September 2025, the Commission was advised by Linfox that the Employers did not object to the Application.

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Benjamin Sweaney, Union Official, setting out the steps taken by the TWU in bargaining with the Employers and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with them, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd (Fair Vote). Fair Vote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

  1. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 15 October 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. I am satisfied that there are relevant exceptional circumstances required by s.443(5), justifying an extended minimum period of written notice for the purposes of s.414(2)(b) of the Act when taking industrial action set out in the Order made by the Commission. The extended notice period of five (5) working days applies to the actions listed in questions 2 to 5 (only in relation to stoppages on the performance of work for periods of over four hours) in Clause 5 of the Order.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR792252.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] This is, in effect, 10 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR792253>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd, Prosegur Australia Pty Limited and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2912
Case
[2025] FWC 2912
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia, acting through its NSW/QLD/VIC/TAS (Interim Governance) Branch, made an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Linfox Armaguard Pty Ltd, Prosegur Australia Pty Limited, and Point 2 Point Secure Pty Ltd. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, and the matter was heard by Deputy President Wright in Sydney on 30 September 2025. The Employers did not object to the application, allowing the Commission to decide the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the TWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Employers and whether all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. The court also needed to determine if there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extended minimum period of written notice for the proposed industrial action. Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd, an approved ballot agent, was to conduct the ballot. The Union provided a declaration from a Union Official stating the steps taken in bargaining and the genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the TWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The court determined that there were relevant exceptional circumstances justifying an extended minimum period of written notice for the proposed industrial action. The date for closing voting was set at 15 October 2025, and an extended notice period of five working days was applied to the actions listed in questions 2 to 5 of the Order. The Commission also issued an Order for a compulsory conciliation conference to be conducted by another Member of the Commission.

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.