DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Mountjoy Public Transport Pty Ltd T/A Martyrs Bus Service
(B2019/694)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mountjoy Public Transport Pty Ltd T/AS Martyrs Bus Service.

[1] 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 Mountjoy Public Transport Pty Ltd T/A Martyrs Bus Service (Respondent).

[2] On 22 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Michael McNess 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR711602.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Transport Workers' Union of Australia and Mountjoy Public Transport Pty Ltd T/A Martyrs Bus Service. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of the employees for protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer had the right to refuse the union's request to conduct a ballot of its employees for protected industrial action.

The court considered whether the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was in accordance with the relevant legislative framework. The employer argued that the union had not provided sufficient information to justify the need for a ballot, and that the timing of the ballot was inappropriate. The union, on the other hand, contended that the employer's refusal was an attempt to interfere with its members' right to engage in protected industrial action. The court found that the employer's refusal was not justified, as the union had provided sufficient information to justify the need for a ballot and the timing was reasonable. The court further held that the employer's actions amounted to an unfair labour practice, and that it had interfered with the union's members' right to engage in protected industrial action.

The court ordered the employer to allow the union to conduct the ballot of its employees for protected industrial action. The court also found that the employer had engaged in an unfair labour practice and ordered it to take such steps as were necessary to remedy the situation. The court's decision provides important guidance for employers and unions in relation to the conduct of protected industrial action and the obligations of both parties under the relevant legislative framework.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Mountjoy Public Transport Pty Ltd T/A Martyrs Bus Service

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established