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
(B2019/1272)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 5 NOVEMBER 2019

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

[2] On 5 November 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Daniel Austin of the CEPU declared on 4 November 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR714013.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Thales Australia Limited involved a proposed protected action ballot of Thales employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue was whether the proposed protected action ballot by the union was lawful and whether Thales had the right to seek an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding.

The Fair Work Commission considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and relevant case law concerning protected industrial action. The Commission examined whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for protected action, including whether the action was related to a workplace matter, and whether it was protected by the Act. The Commission also assessed whether Thales had a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent the ballot and whether the potential harm to Thales outweighed the union's right to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was not protected action under the Act, as it did not relate to a workplace matter. The Commission held that the ballot was not protected by the Act and therefore Thales had the right to seek an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The Commission issued an injunction preventing the union from conducting the ballot. The union was also ordered to pay Thales' costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission held that the proposed ballot was not protected action and granted Thales an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The union was further ordered to pay Thales' costs of the proceedings. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any proposed industrial action is properly related to a workplace matter and complies with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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