Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 508

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia

Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd

(B2022/172)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd under AG2018/6637 employed under Moorabbin Transit P/L 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 Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 7 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 PR739108.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia against Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd. The union sought a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of the respondent company, Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd, under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made in relation to employees who were employed under the Moorabbin Transit P/L Enterprise Agreement 2018. The respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing. The Deputy President of the Commission was satisfied, based on the information provided, that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the respondent and if the notification time for the proposed agreement was met. Additionally, the court had to consider if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The union's declaration, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent, played a crucial role in the decision-making process. The court also took into account the absence of objections from the respondent.

The court's reasoning was based on the information provided by the union, which demonstrated that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent. The court was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement was met, and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. As a result, the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission determined that the union's application for a protected action ballot order should be granted. A separate order was issued in PR739108. The decision was made in light of the evidence provided and the absence of objections from the respondent, Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Moorabbin Transit Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established