ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – at first instance, Commission issued decision [[2016] FWC 5568] and held there was no jurisdiction to deal with application – decision overturned on appeal by Full Bench [[2017] FWCFB 143] – appeal decision remitted matter to back to Commission – applicant employed by respondent as Locomotive Driver since 6 February 2012 – on 29 August 2015, applicant worked as a driver assisting with driver Mr Enslin on train number 7721 – train passed signal at red, also known as SPAD (signal passed at danger) – respondent conducted disciplinary investigation and suspended both applicant and Mr Enslin from duty without pay for one week – applicant lodged with respondent a Resolving Differences Notification Form under subclause 45.15 of Aurizon (Western Australia) Rail Operations Enterprise Agreement 2014 (Agreement) – dispute not resolved at workplace level and applicant referred dispute to Commission in accordance with subclause 45.4 of Agreement – applicant disputed disciplinary measure taken against him and sought declaration from Commission that disciplinary measure was unfair, unreasonable and harsh in the circumstances – also sought order for wages lost as result of suspension from duty without pay – question for Commission was whether disciplinary sanction imposed on applicant unjust or unreasonable – XPT Case considered – Commission held that SPADs varied in seriousness depending upon circumstances and that disciplinary sanctions imposed by respondent took into account seriousness of SPAD and other factors – accepted that driver and driver assisting were equally responsible for train’s safe operation, even if they have different roles – held it was not unjust or unreasonable that applicant, as the driver assisting, received same disciplinary sanction as driver – application dismissed. Lloyd v Australia Western Railroad P/L t/a ARG an Aurizon Company
…
