Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 512


[2022] FWC 512

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia

v

Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd

(B2022/175)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd employed under AG2018/6639 Ventura Bus Lines P/L - Croydon Depot Enterprise Agreement 2018.

  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 Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

  1. On 7 March 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 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.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR739116.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR739115>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 512
Case
[2022] FWC 512
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the Transport Workers' Union of Australia (Applicant) under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order regarding certain employees of Ventura Bus Lines Pty Ltd (Respondent). The dispute centred on the proposed ballot concerning employees employed under AG2018/6639 Ventura Bus Lines P/L - Croydon Depot Enterprise Agreement 2018. Notably, the Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the Deputy President's decision to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. This involved assessing whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and confirming that the Applicant had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The declaration provided by Mr Bob Lean of the Applicant, detailing the bargaining process and efforts to reach an agreement, was central to this determination.

The Deputy President concluded that the notification time for the proposed agreement existed and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Based on the evidence presented, including the Applicant's declaration and the absence of objection from the Respondent, the Deputy President was satisfied that the conditions for a protected action ballot were met. Consequently, the application was approved.

An order has been issued in PR739116, permitting the proposed ballot to proceed. This decision ensures that the union can take the necessary steps to consult with its members regarding potential protected action, provided the legal requirements are adhered to.

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.