DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
Valley Services Pty Ltd T/A Latrobe Valley Bus Lines
(B2019/727)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Valley Services Pty Ltd T/A Latrobe Valley Bus Lines.

[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 Valley Services Pty Ltd T/A Latrobe Valley Bus Lines (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September, 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 PR711915

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia and Valley Services Pty Ltd, trading as Latrobe Valley Bus Lines, appeared before the Fair Work Commission, with the union seeking to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Valley Services. The dispute centred around the union's request to hold a ballot to gauge employee support for potential industrial action, which the bus line opposed. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to explore members' willingness to take action due to unresolved industrial disputes. Conversely, Valley Services contested the ballot, asserting that it was unnecessary and could potentially cause harm to the business and the public.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union's request for a ballot was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine if the union had demonstrated sufficient grounds to proceed with the ballot, considering factors such as the nature of the industrial dispute, the necessity of the ballot, and the potential impact on the business and the public. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Act.

In examining the evidence presented, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed ballot was necessary or justified under the Act. The Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that unresolved industrial disputes warranted a ballot. Furthermore, the potential impact on the business and the public was deemed significant enough to warrant denying the union's request. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application, finding that the ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for approval.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the Transport Workers' Union of Australia was not granted permission to conduct the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of Valley Services Pty Ltd. The Commission's ruling stood, affirming that the union had not met the necessary legal standards to proceed with the ballot.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Valley Services Pty Ltd T/A Latrobe Valley Bus Lines

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established