Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 2924


[2022] FWC 2924

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/1642)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 3 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd.

  1. The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) has made an application for a protected action ballot order (PABO) pursuant to s. 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

  1. The application seeks to ballot employees of Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent) who are members of, and represented by, the TWU for a proposed agreement to replace the Suez Penrith City Council Agreement 2019 (the Agreement) which has passed its nominal expiry date.

  1. The Respondent did not oppose the making of a protected action ballot order, however it opposed two of the ballot questions in the draft order provided by the TWU and sought to extend the period of written notice required under the ballot order beyond three working days.

  1. Following a conference conducted by telephone on 3 November 2022, the parties reached a consent position in which the period of notice be extended to four working days and the Respondent withdrew its objection pertaining to the ballot questions.

  1. Section 443(5) of the Act provides that if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in s.414(2)(a) being longer than three working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to seven working days.

  1. I am satisfied, based on the Respondent’s oral submissions, that there are exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of the notice period specified in s.414 (2)(a) of the Act.

  1. I have therefore determined to exercise my discretion to grant an extension of the notice period. I am satisfied that an extension of the notice period from three working days to four working days is appropriate in all the circumstances.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Ho Lau of TWU which set out the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondents, I am satisfied that the TWU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, the protected action ballot order must be made.

  1. An Order will be issued separately in PR747577.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747576>

Details
AGLC
Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2924
Case
[2022] FWC 2924
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order to ballot its members employed by Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd. The union sought to ballot its members for a proposed agreement to replace the existing agreement which had expired. Veolia did not oppose the application but did oppose certain ballot questions and sought to extend the notice period required by the Fair Work Act 2009. After a telephone conference between the parties, they reached a consent position that the notice period should be extended to four working days. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission found that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the extension of the notice period and granted the ballot order. The Deputy President was satisfied that the union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with Veolia and that the requirements for a ballot order had been met.

The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying extending the notice period beyond three working days, and whether the union had met the requirements for a ballot order under the Fair Work Act 2009. The relevant sections of the Act allow for a longer notice period if there are exceptional circumstances, and require that a union genuinely try to reach agreement with an employer before seeking a ballot order. The Deputy President found that the union had met the requirements for a ballot order and that exceptional circumstances justified extending the notice period to four working days.

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.