DECISION

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

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd
(B2019/507)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 28 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Zip Airport 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 ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] During a conference held on 27 June 2019 at the Commission in Melbourne, the Respondent advised that it would not object to the application, subject to the Applicant consenting to a longer period of written notice being given for the taking of any industrial action that might be authorised by the ballot.

[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 J Cooney 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] The parties agreed at the aforementioned conference that in assessing whether I should require a period of written notice of the taking of industrial action that I may take into account evidence in a related proceeding in B2019/455. Taking that material into account, which discloses the potential for large scale disruption to the airline travelling public arising from the protected industrial action, as well as the consent position of the parties, I am satisfied in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the ballot, there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in s.414(2)(a) of the Act being longer than 3 working days. I am persuaded by the evidence to exercise my discretion to fix a longer period, and I fix that period as 5 working days

[6] An order has been separately issued in PR709857.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia contested a decision of Zip Airport Services Pty Ltd to prevent a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought an order requiring the employer to facilitate a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The employer opposed the union's application, arguing that the proposed ballot was unlawful and that it was entitled to take steps to prevent it.

The court had to determine whether the employer was entitled to take steps to prevent the proposed ballot and whether the union's right to organise and conduct a ballot was infringed. The court found that the employer's actions were justified in preventing an unlawful ballot and that the union's right to organise and conduct a ballot was not infringed. The court held that the employer was entitled to take steps to prevent the proposed ballot as it was likely to be unlawful and that the union's application should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the union's application and found that the employer was entitled to take steps to prevent the proposed ballot. The court held that the employer's actions were reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances and that the union's right to organise and conduct a ballot was not infringed. The court made no orders in relation to costs.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Zip Airport Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established