Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2014] FWC 1547

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The
v
Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited
(B2014/568)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent). The application was made on 27 February 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

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.

[4] APEMSA has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Aleysia Leonard, an official of APESMA.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order in the terms consented to by the parties.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd. The association sought to ascertain the level of support for potential industrial action, which could include strikes or other forms of action short of a strike, in pursuit of the employees' bargaining objectives. Boeing contested the application, raising issues related to the procedural correctness and the potential impact of the proposed ballot on its operations and the public interest.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the association's ballot notice was compliant with the legislative requirements, including the provision of sufficient information to employees to enable them to make an informed decision. Additionally, Boeing argued that the ballot posed a significant risk to its operations and the broader public interest, given the critical nature of its work and the potential for disruption to services.

In addressing these issues, the Commission found that the association's ballot notice was largely compliant with the legislative requirements. The notice provided the necessary information to employees to make an informed decision, including details of the proposed action and the potential consequences. The Commission also considered the potential impact of the ballot on Boeing's operations and the public interest but ultimately determined that these considerations did not outweigh the employees' right to organise and engage in protected action. Consequently, the application was approved, allowing the association to proceed with the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the protected action ballot among Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd employees be conducted as proposed by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees have sufficient information to make informed decisions about potential industrial action while balancing this with the need to protect the public interest and the rights of employers. The Commission's ruling reinforced the procedural safeguards in place to manage the exercise of protected action within the Australian industrial relations framework.

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established