Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd T/A Torrens Transit

Case [2022] FWC 3166


[2022] FWC 3166

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v

Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd T/A Torrens Transit

(B2022/1774)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd.

  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 Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd T/A Torrens Transit (the Respondent).

  1. On 29 November 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Mr Samuel Robert McIntosh 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.

  1. The Applicant sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd (Vero). I am satisfied that Vero is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Vero is capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Vero has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and is bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

  1. Therefore I appoint Vero as the protected action ballot agent.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR748436.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748435>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd T/A Torrens Transit [2022] FWC 3166
Case
[2022] FWC 3166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an order authorising a protected action ballot of employees of Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd T/A Torrens Transit (the Respondent). The Applicant sought the order in relation to certain employees of the Respondent. The Respondent did not object to the application. The matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the requirements of section 437 of the Act had been satisfied for the order to be made. The Applicant had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent and that the notification period in relation to the proposed agreement had elapsed. The Applicant also had to propose a fit and proper ballot agent to conduct the ballot. The Commission was satisfied that the Applicant had met these requirements on the basis of the material before it.

The Commission found that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that the notification period had elapsed. The proposed ballot agent, Vero Engagement & Voting Solutions Pty Ltd, was deemed fit and proper to conduct the ballot. Vero had agreed to be bound by the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of information relating to the ballot. The Commission was satisfied that Vero was capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and conducting the ballot expeditiously. The Commission therefore appointed Vero as the ballot agent.

The Commission made an order appointing Vero as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. The order was issued separately in PR748436.

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.