DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2020/127)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (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 2 March 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr M Derrick 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 PR717184.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) initiated proceedings against Thales Australia Limited in the Fair Work Commission. The AWU sought a declaration that Thales Australia Limited had not complied with certain legislative provisions by not providing employees with adequate notice of a proposed protected action ballot. The dispute arose from Thales's decision to conduct a ballot among its employees to determine their support for potential industrial action. The AWU argued that Thales had failed to provide employees with the required information about the ballot, including the purpose, timing, and potential impacts of the proposed action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Thales had adequately informed its employees about the ballot and whether Thales had complied with the relevant statutory requirements for protected action ballots. The AWU contended that Thales's communication was insufficient, as it did not detail the reasons for the ballot, the potential consequences of the proposed industrial action, and the rights and obligations of the employees involved. Thales, on the other hand, argued that it had met all necessary legal obligations and provided the employees with the required information. The Commission had to determine whether Thales had indeed provided adequate notice and information to its employees as required by law.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the AWU. The Commission concluded that Thales had not provided employees with adequate information about the ballot, as it failed to detail the reasons for the ballot, the potential consequences, and the rights and obligations of the employees involved. The Commission emphasised the importance of transparency and clarity in communications regarding protected action ballots to ensure that employees are fully informed about the proposed action and its implications. Consequently, Thales was held to have breached the statutory requirements for protected action ballots. The Commission ordered Thales to take steps to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions and to provide employees with the information that was previously omitted.

Australian Workers' Union, 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