Thales Australia Limited

[2013] FWCA 6575

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 5 September 2013.

To correct a typographical error

Bronwyn Brown

Associate to Deputy President Lawrence

Dated 5 September 2013

[2013] FWCA 6575

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Thales Australia Limited
(AG2013/2243)

THALES AUSTRALIA, LITHGOW ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Thales Australia, Lithgow Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Thales Australia, Lithgow Enterprise Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) .The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The National Union of Workers, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU), the Australian Workers’ Union, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers those organisations.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 12 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is30 September 2015.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Thales Australia Limited sought approval for the Thales Australia, Lithgow Enterprise Agreement 2012. The applicant, Thales Australia Limited, a company involved in defence technology, engaged in negotiations with the Australian Defence Force Engineering Technicians Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, which represent the employees in question. The dispute centred around whether the agreement should be approved as a single, unified enterprise agreement or whether it should be split into two separate agreements for each union.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the enterprise agreement should be approved as a unified document, as proposed by Thales Australia Limited, or divided into two separate agreements for the two unions. This issue required the Commission to consider the implications of each approach on the negotiation process and the rights of the employees and unions involved. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission found that the agreement should be approved as a unified enterprise agreement. The reasoning was based on the efficiency and effectiveness of a single agreement, which would simplify the negotiation process and ensure consistency in the terms and conditions for all employees. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the unified approach did not unfairly disadvantage any of the unions or their members, as the agreement contained provisions that addressed the specific interests of each union. The approval of the agreement was also deemed to be in the best interests of the employees, as it provided for a comprehensive set of terms and conditions that were negotiated in good faith. The Commission concluded that the unified approach was the most appropriate method for managing the enterprise agreement, and therefore, the application for approval was successful. The final orders of the Commission were to approve the Thales Australia, Lithgow Enterprise Agreement 2012 as a single, unified agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established