DECISION

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

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions
(B2016/4)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited trading as Australian Munitions.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions (the Respondent).

[2] On 12 January 2016 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 Mr B Terzic of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR576069.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought approval for a protected action ballot involving employees of Thales Australia Limited, trading as Australian Munitions. The dispute centred around the union's intention to organise a protected action, which under Australian labour law, requires authorisation from the Fair Work Commission before it can proceed. The union argued that the proposed industrial action was necessary to address unresolved workplace issues, while Thales Australia Limited contended that the action was unjustified and could potentially disrupt its operations.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the AMWU had genuinely endeavoured to resolve the workplace issues through bargaining, and whether the proposed protected action was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to consider the union's obligations to engage in good faith bargaining and whether the proposed action was likely to cause significant economic harm to Thales Australia Limited. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the action was protected action, which includes actions taken to enforce a claim of employees or to enforce an agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU had not genuinely endeavoured to resolve the issues through bargaining, and therefore the proposed protected action could not proceed. The Commission concluded that the union had not met the requirements of good faith bargaining and that the proposed action was not justified under the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the proposed action would cause significant economic harm to Thales Australia Limited, which outweighed the union's right to organise such action. Consequently, the Commission refused to authorise the proposed protected action ballot.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission held that the AMWU's proposed protected action ballot was not authorised because the union had not genuinely bargained in good faith, and the proposed action would cause significant economic harm to Thales Australia Limited. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of good faith bargaining and the need for industrial action to be justified and proportionate to the workplace issues at hand.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established