DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions
(B2016/163)

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 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 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 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 PR576062.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought an action against Thales Australia Limited trading as Australian Munitions, seeking an order that the employer had failed to provide information about the proposed protected action ballot of employees. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union argued that the employer had not complied with the requirement to provide information under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer, on the other hand, contended that it had provided all the necessary information and that the union's request was unreasonable.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer had failed to provide the necessary information to the union as required by the Act. The Commission considered the definition of "information" under the Act, which includes any information that the employer has or can obtain, which is relevant to the proposed protected action. The Commission also examined the reasonableness of the union's request and whether the employer had provided all the necessary information in a timely manner.

The Commission found that the employer had not provided all the information that the union had requested. The Commission held that the employer had failed to provide information about the proposed protected action ballot, including the number of employees who had signed the ballot and the reasons for the proposed action. The Commission also found that the employer's response to the union's request was unreasonable, as it did not provide all the necessary information in a timely manner. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to provide the information to the union within a specified timeframe.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Thales Australia Limited to provide the union with all the necessary information about the proposed protected action ballot within a specified timeframe. The employer was also ordered to pay the union's costs of the proceedings. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of employers providing accurate and timely information to unions in relation to proposed protected action. The decision also highlighted the need for employers to comply with their obligations under the Fair Work Act.

National Union of Workers 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