DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v
Thales Australia Limited T/A Thales Australia
(B2018/1172)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 12 DECEMBER 2018

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 (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 12 December 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms M Buchanan of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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 PR703107.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

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 (APESMA) for authorisation of a protected action ballot among employees of Thales Australia Limited, trading as Thales Australia. The proposed ballot sought to authorise industrial action in response to Thales' proposed changes to employee conditions, including those relating to redundancy and termination of employment. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the proposed ballot met the legal requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether the proposed action was in relation to a ‘workplace dispute’ and whether the ballot was ‘appropriate and reasonable’ in the circumstances.

The Commission considered whether the proposed ballot related to a workplace dispute, which includes disputes between employees and employers, and between employees and each other. The Commission found that the proposed changes to employee conditions constituted a workplace dispute. The Commission also considered whether the proposed ballot was appropriate and reasonable, taking into account the nature of the dispute, the likely effect of the proposed action on non-participating employees, and the interests of the employees involved. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was appropriate and reasonable, given the significance of the proposed changes to employee conditions and the need for employees to have the opportunity to take protected industrial action in response.

Accordingly, the Fair Work Commission authorised the proposed ballot of Thales Australia Limited employees, allowing them to vote on whether to take protected industrial action in response to the proposed changes to their employment conditions. The authorisation was subject to certain conditions, including the requirement that the ballot be conducted in accordance with the Commission's directions and that any industrial action taken be protected action as defined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision provides guidance on the legal requirements for protected action ballots and the factors that the Commission will consider in determining whether to authorise such ballots.

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Thales Australia Limited T/A Thales Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established