ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for protected action ballot order (PABO) – regarding bargaining for proposed enterprise agreement covering employees of statutory authority responsible for provision of metropolitan train services – decision concerns second application made during current round of bargaining – respondent opposed – argued necessary requirements not met – sought extension to notice period in relation to certain forms of industrial action set out in proposed ballot questions – applicant proposed additional notice period applied to some forms of action but not to full extent – eligible to bring action – all other relevant statutory requirements met – ballot order issued 17 August 2015 – included extended notice period in relation to expanded list of proposed industrial action – no direct evidence before Commission as to bargaining position adopted by respondent – applicant contended genuinely trying to reach agreement – opposed granting of extended notice period in relation to additional categories of industrial action – respondent contended if Commission found July 2016 claims met ‘genuineness test’, this allowed applicant to subsequently adopt further, more extensive, log of claims in order to advance position – not in dispute that applicant genuinely trying to reach agreement – s.443 statutory requirements met – proposed PABO modified to reflect Commission’s decision – PABO issued. Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Rail Commissioner
…
