[2025] FWC 462
Citation: [2025] FWC 462
What happened
Sydney Trains and NSW Trains sought an order under section 418 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to stop industrial action by employees and the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU). The dispute arose from protracted negotiations for an enterprise agreement. The RTBU had notified a partial work ban, a 'go-slow', restricting train speed. On February 14, 2025, a significant number of employees (394) failed to attend work, with 273 reporting sick. The Applicants alleged this was an organised campaign of industrial action by the Union, supported by a text message from a Union convenor encouraging employees to not attend work. The Union argued employees were advised they didn't need to attend work due to a 'lock-out' notice and that absences were a matter of choice.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission did not make an order stopping the industrial action. Deputy President Roberts found the Applicants failed to establish that the absences constituted unprotected industrial action. The Commission considered the Union's argument that the failure to attend work was deemed employee claim action under section 471(4A) and therefore protected. The Commission also noted the lack of evidence demonstrating the Union organised a 'sick-out' and that employees' absences were not legitimate sick leave. The Commission acknowledged the Union's advice to members regarding the 'lock-out' notice.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that a significant increase in employee sick leave, while concerning, does not automatically constitute unprotected industrial action. Employers need to demonstrate a clear link between the absences and organised union activity to successfully seek an order under section 418 of the Fair Work Act. Simply issuing a notice under s.471 does not automatically mean any subsequent absence is unprotected.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of the potential consequences of collective sick leave and the importance of legitimate reasons for absence. The Commission’s decision highlights the complexities of interpreting employee actions within the context of industrial relations.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc462.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →