DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2019/1275)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 5 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 5 November 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Tom Raue of the APESMA declared on 4 November 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR714009.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, acting on behalf of employees of Thales Australia Limited, who sought to conduct a protected action ballot. The dispute arose over the employees' dissatisfaction with certain workplace conditions and potential redundancies. Thales Australia Limited contested the ballot, arguing that it was not a genuine industrial action ballot and could potentially lead to disruptions in the company's operations.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the proposed ballot constituted a genuine protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. This required an examination of whether the action was genuinely related to an industrial dispute and whether the ballot notice complied with statutory requirements. The Commission also had to determine whether the ballot was necessary to facilitate industrial action and whether there were reasonable grounds for the employees' dissatisfaction.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed ballot was indeed a genuine protected action as it related to a real industrial dispute. The employees' concerns about workplace conditions and potential redundancies were legitimate and warranted the consideration of protected action. The Commission concluded that the ballot notice was compliant with the relevant statutory requirements and that the proposed action was necessary to facilitate industrial action. The Commission further determined that there were reasonable grounds for the employees' dissatisfaction, thereby upholding the validity of the proposed ballot.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, allowing the employees of Thales Australia Limited to proceed with the proposed protected action ballot. This decision underscored the importance of protecting employees' rights to organise and engage in protected action, provided that the action is genuinely related to an industrial dispute and complies with legal requirements.

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Thales Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established