Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd
(B2022/1705)

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd – union eligibility rules – whether union capable of being bargaining representative.

[1] The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU or union) has made an application for a protected action ballot order (PABO) pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application seeks to ballot employees of Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (Respondent) who are members of, and represented by, the TWU for a proposed agreement to replace the Cleanaway Health Services Silverwater NSW Operations Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement).

[3] The Respondent’s site located in Silverwater, NSW (the site) is responsible for the safe treatment and disposal of health-related waste which includes sharps management, medical waste, pharmaceutical waste, healthcare hazardous waste and quarantine waste.

[4] The Respondent opposed the making of the PABO on the basis that it did not consent to the proposed group of employees to be balloted. Specifically, while it did not dispute that the TWU is entitled to be a bargaining representative for truck drivers engaged to deliver waste to the site, it disputed that the TWU can be the bargaining representative for plant operators who perform work at the site.

[5] In addition, it was contended that two of the proposed ballot questions set out in the application are not industrial action within the meaning of s.19 of the Act.

[6] The TWU subsequently advised that the two questions which were objected to by the Respondent were no longer pursued. However, it maintained that the TWU was not entitled to represent the industrial interests of all employees covered by the proposed agreement.

[7] The application was heard by video on 25 November 2022, with final written submissions filed on 29 November 2022. Mr P Boncardo of Counsel appeared for the TWU and Mr T Lange of Piper Alderman appeared for the Respondent.

[8] The TWU relied on evidence given by Mr Allan Ramos and Mr Owen Housbey who are both employed by the Respondent in the role of Plant Operator. The Respondent relied on evidence given by its Operations Supervisor of the site, Mr David Tickner.

[9] Section 443 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a PABO must be made. It provides, relevantly:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

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

[10] The issue for the Commission to determine is whether the TWU is entitled to represent the interests of plant operators who perform work at the site under its Rules, and whether those employees can therefore be part of the ‘group of employees’ who are balloted for the purposes of s.443 of the Act.

[11] Given the Act requires that these applications must be determined in an expeditious manner and, if possible, within 2 working days, this decision will be brief.

[12] For the reasons set out below, I find the union cannot be a bargaining representative of the plant operators who perform work at the site because it is not entitled to represent their industrial interests.

The case for the TWU

[13] The union questioned whether the Commission should, in the context of a PABO application, embark upon a determination of whether an employee organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of all employees to be balloted, where it is accepted that the employee organisation is a bargaining representative for at least one of those employees. In this regard it submitted that it was neither the role nor the function of the Commission to determine the question as to the scope of the group of employees to be balloted given the terms of s437(5) of the Act. Nonetheless, it submitted, the question could readily be answered in the union’s favour in the context of this matter, and the Commission can and should resolve the objection agitated by the Respondent.

[14] The union submitted it was entitled to represent the industrial interests of the plant operators under its Rules as plant operators are:

a. employed in the industry of the transport of materials by vehicles; and/or

b. employed in connection with the industry of the transport of materials by vehicles or driving; and/or

c. employed in connection with the occupation of driving; and/or

d. employed in the occupation of loading and unloading on to and/or from vehicles.

[15] In terms of the statutory scheme and the TWU Rules, the union’s submissions included that:

“6. Section 176(1)(b) of the FW Act provides that an ‘employee organisation’ will be a bargaining representative for an employee who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement if the employee is a member of the organisation. Section 176(3) determines that an employee organisation cannot be a bargaining representative of an employee unless the organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to work to be performed under the agreement. Hence, in order to be a ‘bargaining representative’ for employees to be covered by the proposed agreement, the TWU must be capable of representing their industrial interests under its Rules.

7. Section 437(1) of the FW Act permits a bargaining representative to apply for a protected action ballot order ‘requiring a protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for the agreement’. An application for a protected action ballot order must, by force of s 437(3)(a), specify the group of employees who are to be balloted. Section 437(5) stipulates that the group of employees detailed in s 437(3)(a) is taken to include only employees who, relevantly, ‘are represented by a bargaining representative who is an applicant for the protected action ballot order….”

…..

9. Rule 4 of the TWU’s Rules provides that the TWU is to consist of persons described in Annexure B. The chapeau to clause (A)(1) to Annexure B provides that the TWU is to consist of an unlimited number of persons ‘employed or seeking to be employed in or in connexion with’ stipulated industries, occupations callings, vocations or industrial pursuits. Clause (A)(1)(a)-(b) detail such industries and/or occupations etcetera to include:

(a) The transport of persons and/or passengers, and/or goods, wares, merchandise, or any material whatsoever, by or on vehicles or animals or by aircraft or by motor, steam, oil, electric or other mechanically-propelled contrivances; drivers, assistants and conductors of same, and stable work wheresoever performed, including the work of attendance on horses and other beasts of burden, whether in stables or otherwise; all yard and garage cleaning and other work in connexion with driving and transport, including, washing, greasing, oiling, cleaning, polishing, tyre-fitting and general attendance on horse or mechanically-propelled vehicles and mechanical contrivances, training and breaking-in of horses, loading and unloading on to and/or from any vehicle; shunting by horse-power, supervising and collecting moneys, or washing cans in connexion with the distribution of milk, working in pits, tarring and washing pans, ploughing in of night soil, digging trenches and burying soil in connexion with sanitary work, ploughing in conjunction with the construction and excavation of earthworks; and

(b) All driving … (emphasis added)

10. Clause A(2) to Annexure B provides that for the purposes of the eligibility rule, a person shall be deemed to be employed in one or more specified industries, occupations, calling, vocations or industrial pursuits if their usual occupation is that of an employee in one or more specified industries, occupations, callings, vocations or industrial pursuits.

11. The principles concerning the construction of trade union rules and eligibility rules in particular are not in doubt and can be shortly stated. Such rules are to be construed objectively. They are to be given a broad interpretation and not to be read strictly as if they were ‘framed stipulations inserted in a legal instrument of lawyers’ but as ‘plain and business like statement[s] of members of the trades concerned, combining for mutual support, and setting down the terms of their combination in language applicable to their situation and intended… to be understood apart from technical rules of interpretation’.

12. As can be seen, the TWU’s eligibility rule contains what can be conventionally described as both an ‘industry rule’ and an ‘occupation rule’. It has been held to be a hybrid rule, with one part of the rule focusing on the industry of the employer and the other being premised on the occupation of the employee.

13. Whether an employee is employed ‘in’ an industry focuses attention on the industry of the employer. An employer may operate within a number of different industries and the fact an employer operates in one industry in respect to on part of its operations does not colour the industrial character of its other operations.

14. The collocation ‘in connection with’ is one of expansion that broadens the scope of a union rule which otherwise refers to employees being employed in an industry. The phrase ‘in connection with’ connotes a relationship between the work of an employee in their position and, relevantly the transport of ‘any material whatsoever by or on vehicles’ or ‘driving’. A wide construction of rules of expansion which refer to employees employed in connection with particular industries is to be preferred over a narrow one. So long as the work of the employee has some functional connection of significance to the work performed in the relevant industry, the employee will be employed in connection with the particular industry.

15. In the context of an occupational rule, the words ‘in connection with’ are also words of expansion. For the requisite connection to be established, the work of the employees in question must be referable or significant to the work of the second group of employees with whom there is said to be a connection.

[16] In terms of the application of the union’s Rules to the work performed by the plant operators at the site, the union made the following submissions:

“16. Cleanaway conducts a business transporting waste. The aspect of its business conducted from the Site involves the collection and transportation of medical waste, including clinical, anatomical, pharmaceutical, cytoxic and biosecurity waste. Truck drivers collect this waste and transport it to the Site. After arriving at the Site, plant operators unload the waste. Plant operators then deal with the waste depending on the nature and type of waste. Waste may be sterilised and melted using an ‘autoclave machine’. It may be washed using a ‘washline’. It may also be incinerated.

17. Waste may be disposed of at the Site. However, it may also be collected by trucks and transported to landfill sites. Plant operators load the waste onto trucks which transport the waste to landfill sites in various locations.

18. The aspect of Cleanaway’s business engaged in at the Site is ‘in’ the industry of the transportation of ‘material’ by vehicles. Plant operators are employed in that industry. It follows that plant operators perform work in the industry of transport of material by vehicles.

19. To the extent that Cleanaway’s business at the Site is not specifically in the industry of the transport of material by vehicles, the work performed by plant operators at the Site is in connection with that industry. The work of plant operators has a functional connection to and significance for the transportation of waste materials by vehicles, given that the plant operators unload that material from vehicles and dispose of it. They also load it onto vehicles for transportation elsewhere. Plant operators are, therefore, employed in connection with the industry of the transportation of material by vehicles.

20. Further, plant operators are employed in connection with the occupation of driving. Their work in loading and unloading vehicles is referable to and significant for the work of the drivers of the trucks which carry the waste to and from the Site as, absent such unloading and loading work, the truck drivers could not perform their work.

21. Finally, the plant operators are engaged in the occupation of performing work loading and unloading on to and/or from vehicles in connection with driving and transport.

22. For the above reasons, the plant operators fall under multiple aspects of the TWU’s eligibility Rule.

23. Cleanaway’s objection to the TWU’s capacity to represent the industrial interests of plant operators is bereft of merit.”

[17] The evidence as to the work performed by plant operators at the site is dealt with later in this decision.

[18] In closing submissions, the union submitted that the task of determining whether or not it could represent the industrial interests of the plant operators at the site involved two steps, the first being the correct construction of its Rules and second the application of the Rules to the facts, ie whether or not the employment of the plant operators fits within the scope of the unions Rules. The TWU pointed to various decisions in support of their contention that its Rules covered the work of the plant operators.

[19] The union’s submissions also included that the substantial character of a business may be in or in connection with more than one industry, and it is not in such circumstances necessary to decide which is predominant, nor is it necessary for each group of activities that have a substantial character to operate as a distinct enterprise within the employer’s overall business. To this end, the union contended that the Respondent was not only in the waste management industry, but also in the transport industry. It contended that the evidence of all the witnesses confirmed the evidence of what the drivers do in the context of the Respondent’s operations, which supported a finding that the Respondent is also in the transport industry.

The case for the Respondent

[20] The Respondent’s submissions included that:

a. The application by the TWU wrongly invites the Commission to ignore the jurisdictional requirement that the employees to be balloted are exclusively those whose industrial interests are capable of being represent by the TWU, suggesting instead that the test in respect of an entire workforce satisfied if “at least one” employee can be represented.

b. It accepted that by reason of the occupational character of its Rules, the TWU has capacity to represent the industrial interests of employees whose principal purpose of employment is driving, however does not follow that the Respondent is in the transport industry. On the contrary, the Respondent contended it is in the waste industry.

c. It is correct to say what is required to be considered in determining industrial coverage is the industry of the employer, and that it is the “substantial character” of the employer’s business which is to be considered for that purpose.

d. A proper assessment of whether the Respondent is in the industry of road transport would be a significant departure from established demarcations and with potential implications for modern award coverage.

e. The TWU’s material does no more than make a mere assertion as to the ‘substantial character’ of road transport within the Respondent’s business, and such assertion was unsupported by evidence.

f. Whether or not the trade or business of an employer is in or in connection with a particular industry is a question of fact. The answer to that question is determined by the substantial character of the trade or business of the employer and all of its employees and requires a consideration of the business of the employer as a whole.

g. Plant operators are not employed for the principal purpose of loading/unloading vehicles. The waste industry deals with (relevantly) treated and untreated (medical) waste. That waste is transported by road, and loaded and unloaded, so as to be treated. The mode of transport of accessing by road delivery the waste for treatment is insufficient to establish a relevant connection: “it is not enough that the products of the worker are used in the industry or that the products of the industry are used by the worker”.

h. The union’s Rules must be read as a whole, and it is impermissible to treat an activity mentioned in a rule (such as loading and unloading) as isolated from its surrounding text.

i. In this case, the surrounding words limit the reference to “loading and unloading” to work that is properly identified as a subset of “yard and garage cleaning and other work in connexion with driving and transport”. Where as here the work done is for the purpose of waste treatment and not simply in order to move the waste from one place to another (unrelated to its processing) there is no scope for the TWU to assert the necessary connection.

j. In terms of an occupational Rule, a member must be employed for the principal purpose of carrying out the occupational duty in fact identified in the rule.

k. The primary/principal purpose test:

“requires a holistic examination of the major, substantial or principal aspect of the work performed including what the person is employed to do, the tasks undertaken, the amount of time spent undertaking particular tasks, the circumstances of the employment, and the manner in which the work is organised by the employer. While time spent undertaking tasks is a relevant consideration, it is not determinative of an employee’s primary or principal purpose, and the test does not involve the application of a mathematical formulation. The primary or principal purpose for which a person is employed must be determined by looking at what the person does in the context of the employer’s organisation of work.”

l. It has identified that plant operators may assist with the loading of bulked waste to semi-trailers for the purpose of that bulked waste being sent off site for processing, and not loading/unloading of normal products from a regular driver’s run. The reason plant operators may undertake handling of bulked waste is because it is operationally a part of the safe handling of medical waste (unlike the loading or unloading of bins filled at a medical facility, which involves handling bins only). The TWU’s evidence in support of the application goes no further than confirming that position. Plainly, any act of loading or unloading undertaken by a plant operator is exclusively related to the waste management function, not to transport per se.

m. The training received by and in accordance with which the plant operators are required to work is as to the operation of sterilising plant and the manual handling of bins and material within the site (such as bin movement between bin staging areas and processing machinery). It does not include the operation of tailgates and weigh scales which are required to be undertaken by drivers to move bins from trucks to the bin staging areas for subsequent processing.

(footnotes omitted)

[21] The Respondent further contended that if the Commission agreed that the TWU is not entitled to represent the industrial interests of plant operators, it would also be the case that the course of bargaining undertaken by the union to date involves a misrepresentation to the Respondent, and such misrepresentation means it could not be said the union was genuinely trying to reach agreement.

Evidence as to the work performed by plant operators

[22] Mr Housbey, a plant operator, gave evidence in support of the TWU’s case. He said in his witness statement that his day-to-day job included unloading trucks when they arrived at the site with waste to be processed. He said he loaded the waste into a bin and he was required to manually remove the bin from the truck. He also said he was required to assist with the loading and unloading of trucks on multiple occasions on a daily basis, being 2-4 times each shift. He gave evidence that plant operators are also required to load semi-trailer trucks that attend the site with empty bins with waste that is to be processed at a different Cleanaway site. He said plant operators are required to load semi-trailers at least once every shift.

[23] Mr Ramos, also a plant operator, said in his witness statement that it was the responsibility of all plant operators to complete loading and unloading of trucks every shift.

[24] Both of these witnesses were cross examined, and Mr Housbey was taken to a ‘floor map’ of the site, overlaid with a ‘process flow diagram’ to show what happens with the waste from the time it entered the site on a truck and how it was processed.

[25] In cross examination, it was put to Mr Ramos that it was the truck driver’s role to load and unload the trucks, and not the role of the plant operators. It was also put to him that if he were to stop his work processing waste, then one of the processes that should be continuous would need to stop. Mr Ramos’ evidence was that continuous processes were stopped so that plant operators could assist with unloading trucks.

[26] Both Mr Ramos and Mr Housbey agreed that they had not been inducted in the contents of the Transport Induction Manual, which included the safe operation of the weigh scales and safe operations of tailgates and trucks.

[27] Mr Ramos was also questioned about whether he thought he would regularly appear on the CCTV footage that records activity at the loading dock. Mr Ramos agreed he would not be seen in any such CCTV footage operating tailgates and weigh scales that he was not inducted to operate. He said he would appear in the footage moving bins from the staging area into other areas for processing. He subsequently agreed that it was the truck driver that operated the tailgate and would move the bins to the weigh scales.

[28] Similar questions were put to Mr Housbey, who also agreed that the truck driver removed the bins from the truck and put them onto the weigh scales. He also agreed it was the driver who loaded bins onto their trucks, not the plant operators.

[29] Mr Tickner is the Operations Supervisor of the site and he gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

[30] Mr Tickner said that plant operators are employed to process waste and sterilise waste bins for return and reuse to medical facilities. Plant operators may also move bins within a processing site including from the bin staging/ storage area to the incinerator. At the site, the bin staging/ storage area, autoclave, bin wash line and clean bin storage area are in a different building to the incinerator. The movement of bins within the site to process waste by incineration can include use of mobile plant (forklift), however only a small number of plant operators maintain a forklift licence. He also gave evidence that drivers are employed to move medical waste for processing, and to return sterilised bins.

[31] Mr Tickner confirmed there were 70 employees at the site, comprising 36 drivers and 34 plant operators, and that it was the responsibility of drivers to disembark bins to weigh scales directly from the vehicle, and to record the weight so that the cost can be correctly rendered to the customer. The weigh scales at the site are located within one metre or so of the loading dock and drivers move bins to the weigh scales for that purpose, and then to nearby bin staging/storage area for processing. He said that plant operators are responsible for moving bins from the bin staging/storage area to the various processing areas, then moved to the bin wash bay where they are cleaned, then to the clean bin storage areas from which drivers load the clean bins for return to medical facilities. He explained the layout and process flow of the site by reference to the floor map mentioned earlier.

[32] In terms of training, Mr Tickner said that plant operators receive different training to drivers, reflecting their differing responsibilities. The key training document for new drivers is the Transport Induction Manual which includes induction and instruction on the safe and accurate operation of tailgates and weigh scales. Plant operators are not required to undertake this training because they are not required to, or expected to, operate tailgates and the weigh scale.

[33] Mr Tickner concluded his evidence in chief by saying that the loading and unloading of trucks for the purposes of transportation does not form part of the normal duties of plant operators and plant operators are not assigned or expected to undertake those tasks and should not be doing so. He disagreed with the evidence of Mr Ramos and Mr Housbey to the extent they contended that they were in any way responsible for the loading and unloading of trucks from a regular driver’s run, nor that they do so on a regular basis.

[34] In cross examination, Mr Tickner agreed that it was imperative that waste is unloaded and moved in an efficient fashion so trucks can leave site and collect more waste. He confirmed he did not have a direct line of sight from his desk to the area where the trucks were loaded and unloaded. Mr Tickner did not agree that plant operators assisted with the loading and unloading of trucks. He said if they had assisted in the loading or unloading of trucks, it was not something that they should be doing as they have their own assigned duties to perform, that being the processing of the waste.

[35] In re-examination, Mr Tickner said that he had reviewed some CCTV footage which monitored the loading dock and observed that no plant operators were performing loading/unloading duties, and that the site was operating consistent with the explanation he provided in his witness statement.

[36] Having considered the evidence given in cross examination by Mr Ramos and Mr Housbey, and the evidence of Mr Ticker, I am satisfied that plant operators are not responsible for the loading and unloading of trucks. Loading and unloading is the responsibility of the truck driver. To the extent loading or unloading is done by plant operators, I accept the evidence of Mr Tickner that this is not their role and not a task they should ordinarily be performing. It was not contested that they have not been trained or inducted in the safe operation of loading/unloading of trucks.

[37] This finding as to the work performed by the plant operators is critical to the ultimate outcome in this case. Had the evidence supported a finding that the plant operators were required to participate in the loading and unloading of trucks, and this was a substantial part of their role (as opposed to an incidental part if at all), then the outcome would have been different.

Consideration

[38] I am satisfied it is necessary to determine whether the union is entitled to represent the interests of those employees who are to be balloted. It is not sufficient in my view that only one of the employees to be balloted is entitled to be represented by the TWU. The union must be able to represent all the employees who are to be balloted, and to represent them, the employees must be eligible to be a member of the TWU. It should not be contentious that a union cannot be a bargaining representative of an employee unless it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of that employee.

[39] There is no dispute as to the principles concerning the construction of union eligibility rules. Such rules are to be construed objectively, are to be given a broad interpretation and not read as if they were ‘framed stipulations inserted in a legal instrument of lawyers’ but as ‘plain and business like statements of members of the trades concerned … to be understood apart from technical rules of interpretation”. I accept, as the union submitted, that the TWU’s Rules contain what can be described as both an industry rule and an occupation rule, with one part of the Rule focussing on the industry of the employer, and the other being premised on the occupation of the employee.

[40] While there is no dispute that the Respondent’s truck drivers are covered by the union’s Rules (premised on the occupation of the employee), it does not follow that all employees of the Respondent are capable of being covered by the Rules.

[41] Having considered all the evidence and submissions made by the parties, I am not satisfied that the plant operators are employed in or in connection with the transport industry, nor are they employed in or in connection with the occupation of driving. As the union submitted: “So long as the work of the employee has some functional connection of significance to the work performed in the relevant industry, the employee will be employed in connection with the particular industry” (emphasis added). The evidence does not support a finding that there is a functional connection of any significance. The evidence supports a finding that the plant operators’ duties do not include the loading and unloading of truck as a substantial part of their role. This view is supported by the evidence given in cross examination by Messrs Ramos and Housbey, in which they resiled from parts of their witness statements related to their role in the loading and unloading of trucks, and the evidence of Mr Tickner. Further, the evidence was uncontested that the plant operators have not been trained in or undergone any induction into the safe operation of the functions that are involved in the loading and unloading of trucks. I accept the evidence of Mr Tickner to as to the primary purpose of the role of plant operators, that being the processing of waste and not the loading and unloading of waste.

[42] The union sought to characterise the business of the Respondent as “a business transporting waste”. I disagree with this characterisation. The evidence of the Respondent, which I accept, is that its business is the processing of waste, and this is the substantial character of its business. While it is obvious that to process the waste it needs to be collected from a customer’s premises and taken to the site to be processed, this does not change the essential character of the Respondent’s business. The waste is transported for the purpose of processing it. As the Respondent submitted: “it is not enough that the products of the worker are used in the industry or that the products of the industry are used by the worker”.

[43] Even giving a wide interpretation to the words ‘in connection with’, I am not satisfied based on the evidence that there is a sufficient connection between the work of the plant operators and the transport of ‘any material whatsoever by or on vehicles’ or ‘driving’. I agree with the Respondent that the unions Rules must be read as a whole, and it is impermissible to treat an activity mentioned in a rule such as loading and unloading as isolated from its surrounding text. In this case, the work is done for the purpose of processing waste, and not for the purpose of simply moving the waste from one place to another, unrelated to such processing.

[44] The evidence is clear in my view that the principal or primary purpose of the role of the plant operator is the processing of waste, it is not loading or unloading of trucks. This is unchanged even if the plant operators do assist with the loading of some waste on occasions, as at best it is incidental to their main purpose of processing waste.

[45] I do not accept the union’s contention that the work of the drivers could not occur without the plant operators. The driver can drive a truck, and load and unload, without assistance from a plant operator. The evidence of the Respondent was clear that it was the role of the driver to load and unload the truck, not the role of the plant operator.

[46] For completeness, and for the reasons set out earlier, the evidence does not support a finding that the plant operators are:

a. Employed in or in connection with the industry of the transport of materials by vehicles or driving;

b. Employed in connection with the occupation of driving; or

c. Employed in the occupation of loading and unloading on to and/or from vehicles.

[47] In coming to this decision, I have taken into account in particular the decision in Harnischfeger of Australia Pty Ltd v CFMEU 1.

[48] I am not satisfied that the TWU’s contention that they are entitled to represent the plant operators invalidates or undermines the bargaining process, and I do not accept the Respondent’s arguments in this regard. It is not uncommon for an enterprise agreement to include more than one union (or no union at all) representing employees who are to be covered by an enterprise agreement. Likewise, the inability of the TWU to represent plant operators does not mean an agreement could not be reached which covered both truck drivers and plant operators, subject to the necessary preconditions of the Act being met.

[49] Accordingly, on the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Ho Lau of TWU which set out the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent, I am satisfied that the TWU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent in relation to employees able to be represented by the TWU, that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, the protected action ballot order must be made.

[50] An Order will be issued separately in PR748318.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748317>

 1   152 IR 243