DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2016/186)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (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 (the Respondent).

[2] On 13 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 A Snowball 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 PR576075.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought an injunction against Thales Australia Limited in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to prevent Thales from implementing a restructure that would result in the dismissal of employees. The Union argued that the proposed restructure constituted an industrial change that required a ballot of its members to determine if they would take protected action. Thales contended that the industrial change was not substantial enough to require a ballot and that the Union's proposed ballot was procedurally flawed. The court had to determine whether the proposed industrial change constituted a sufficient alteration to trigger the requirement for a ballot, and if the Union's proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the proposed restructure constituted a significant industrial change and that the Union's ballot complied with the necessary procedural requirements. The court emphasised the importance of the Union providing clear and accurate information to its members and ensuring that the ballot process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The court granted the injunction, preventing Thales from implementing the restructure until the ballot was conducted. The court ordered that the Union provide the necessary information to its members and conduct the ballot in accordance with the Act. The court also ordered that Thales refrain from implementing the restructure until the ballot process was completed and the result was known.

National Union of Workers 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