DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd
(B2019/455)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 18 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 Australian Lamb ZIP Airport Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] The Respondent does not object to the application however contends that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a longer notice period.

[3] I am satisfied in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) of the Act being longer than 3 working days. I set that period to be 5 working days. I will publish my reasons for this decision in due course.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Dissio Markos 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.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr J Cooney for the Applicant

Ms N Gaspar of Counsel for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2019

Melbourne

17 June 2019

Written submissions:

Respondent 14 June 2019

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Zip Airport Services Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the Transport Workers' Union and Zip Airport Services, a company providing airport services. The crux of the matter was a proposed ballot for protected action by the employees of Zip Airport Services, which the company sought to prevent. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the legality of the proposed ballot.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the ballot notice provided by the Union was sufficient and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for protected action. The Court also needed to assess whether the Union had reasonably believed that a workplace dispute existed, which was a necessary condition for proceeding with the ballot.

In delivering the judgment, the Court meticulously examined the procedural and substantive requirements for a protected action ballot. The Court found that the Union's ballot notice was insufficient because it did not adequately inform the employees of the specific issues they were being asked to vote on. Moreover, the Court held that the Union had not established a reasonable belief of a workplace dispute. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proposed ballot was unlawful and granted the injunction sought by Zip Airport Services, prohibiting the Union from proceeding with the ballot.

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