Australian Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 2881

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

Thales Australia Limited

(B2022/1613)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

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).

The Respondent was given multiple opportunities to comment on the application but chose not to do so.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Michael Ivill 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR747287.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union, represented by Mr Michael Ivill, applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited. Thales Australia Limited, the employer, was given multiple opportunities to comment on the application but chose not to do so. The Deputy President of the Commission, Clancy, decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing, based on the material presented, including Mr Ivill's declaration detailing the union's efforts in bargaining with the employer and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid. The union argued that it had fulfilled the criteria for a protected action ballot, including attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and notifying the employer of its intention to hold a ballot. The employer did not provide any comments or evidence to counter the union's claims.

The Deputy President determined that the union had met the requirements of section 437 of the Act, as evidenced by the declaration of Mr Ivill and the union's efforts in bargaining with the employer. The court was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement was valid, and the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the court issued an order for a protected action ballot to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited. The employer's failure to comment on the application was noted, and the court proceeded to determine the matter based on the material presented. The Deputy President found that the union had fulfilled the necessary requirements for a protected action ballot, and the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid. As a result, the court issued an order for a protected action ballot to proceed, as per the union's request.

Australian Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established