National Union of Workers v Thales Australia Limited

[2018] FWC 7664

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers

Thales Australia Limited

(B2018/1201)

Deputy President masson

MELBOURNE, 18 DECEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

This is an application by the National Union of Workers (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).

On 17 December 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr M Toner 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 PR703249.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought a proceeding against Thales Australia Limited in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around a proposed industrial action ballot by Thales Australia Limited employees, which the union challenged on the grounds that it failed to meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the ballot notice issued by Thales Australia Limited complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the union argued that the notice did not adequately explain the industrial action to the employees and therefore did not meet the necessary legal standards. Thales Australia Limited, on the other hand, maintained that the ballot notice was sufficient and that the employees had been appropriately informed.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, found that the ballot notice did not sufficiently explain the proposed industrial action. The Commission determined that the notice failed to include a detailed description of the action, the reasons for it, and the potential consequences. As a result, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not meet the requirements for a protected action ballot and was therefore invalid. Thales Australia Limited was directed to comply with the statutory requirements in any future ballot notices to ensure they are legally sufficient.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission ordered Thales Australia Limited to ensure that any future ballot notices comply with the Fair Work Act, including providing a detailed explanation of the proposed industrial action, the reasons for it, and the potential consequences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established