DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2020/126)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of 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 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 D King 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 PR717177.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the "Union") initiated proceedings against Thales Australia Limited (the "Employer") concerning a proposed industrial action ballot of the Employer's employees. The Union sought an order preventing the Employer from implementing certain changes to employees' working conditions without first allowing for a protected action ballot. The dispute arose from the Employer's intention to alter the employees' working arrangements, which the Union claimed would detrimentally impact the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Union had the right to call for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether the proposed changes constituted a "proposed change" as defined by the Act, and whether the Union had provided sufficient notice to the Employer. The court also considered whether the proposed changes were significant enough to warrant a ballot, and if the Union's application for an injunction was in the interests of justice.

The court held that the proposed changes did indeed constitute a "proposed change" under the Fair Work Act. The court found that the Union had provided adequate notice to the Employer and that the changes were significant enough to warrant a ballot. The court emphasised the importance of allowing employees to have their say on matters that could affect their working conditions. Consequently, the court granted the Union's application for an interlocutory injunction, preventing the Employer from implementing the changes without first allowing for a protected action ballot. The court concluded that the injunction was necessary to prevent potential harm to the employees and to uphold the principles of fair work.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia 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