DECISION

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

United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
v
Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2015/103)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH

MELBOURNE, 19 JANUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Transfield Services in or in connection with the firefighting industry in Victoria.

[1] The following decision, now edited, was issued during proceedings conducted on 8 January 2015.

[2] This is an application for a protected action ballot order by the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia (UFU) on behalf of their members employed by Transfield Services. The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”).

[3] The applicant seeks to ballot employees of Transfield Services who are members of the UFU and who would be subject to the proposed enterprise agreement.

[4] In considering this matter I must apply s.443 of the Act which provides:

443 When FWA must make a protected action ballot order

(1) FWA must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) FWA is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) FWA must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(4) If FWA decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that FWA decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that FWA decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If FWA is 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) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.

[5] The next matter to which attention must be given is whether or not the applicant is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. In this regard, I have relied upon the Witness Statement of Mr Jeremy Murphy, Industrial Officer for the UFU, which provides information about matters relevant to s.443 of the Act.

[6] In turning to the submissions made by Mr Gosling, Executive General Manager, Industrial Relations, Southern States, WA & NT, Labour Relations Strategy and Development Group, I refer to the findings of the Full Bench in John Holland Pty Ltd v “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) [2010 FWAFB 526] and note that the UFU and Transfield Services have provided a revised and agreed draft order.

[7] I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, in particular those set out in s.443, have been met. Having decided that s.443(1)(a) and (b) have been complied with, I must make a protected action ballot order, as sought by the UFU.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

J. Murphy for the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia.

G. Gosling with C. G. Anderson on behalf of Transfield Services.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne:

January, 8.

Final written submissions:

Jeremy Murphy, Industrial Officer, UFU, providing revised and agreed draft orders.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, the union sought an order to compel Transfield Services, an employer in the firefighting industry in Victoria, to facilitate a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected action. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this dispute. The union argued that the employer had not provided sufficient information to enable the union to organise the ballot, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer, on the other hand, contended that it had already provided all necessary information and that the union's demands were unreasonable and beyond the scope of what was legally required.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Transfield Services had a duty to provide further information to the union to facilitate the ballot, beyond what was already provided. The court had to interpret the obligations imposed by the Fair Work Act and determine whether the union's requests were reasonable and necessary to organise the ballot effectively. The court considered the balance between the union's right to organise and communicate with its members and the employer's right to manage its business operations without undue interference.

The court found that the employer had already provided a significant amount of information to the union, including details about the employees and the worksites. The court held that the union's requests for additional information were not reasonable, as they went beyond what was necessary to organise the ballot. The court emphasised that the employer's duty was to provide information that was reasonably required to enable the union to conduct the ballot, and not to disclose confidential or commercially sensitive information. The court concluded that the union's application should be dismissed, as the employer had already fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the union's application, finding that the employer had already provided sufficient information to enable the ballot to be organised. The court ordered that the union pay the employer's costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of unions to organise with the legitimate business interests of employers, and highlights the need for both parties to act in good faith and within the bounds of the law.

United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Transfield Services (Australia) 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