The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v PHI International Australia Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 312

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
v

PHI International Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/59)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PHI International Australia Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PHI International Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 9 February 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Glynn Reginald Sowter of the Applicant declared on 7 February 2022, 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 PR738384.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAE) brought an action against PHI International Australia Pty Ltd, seeking an injunction to prevent the company from proceeding with a proposed ballot of its employees on protected action. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was the court that heard the case. The ALAE argued that the ballot was an unfair industrial practice under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because the ballot notice did not contain sufficient information to enable the employees to make an informed decision. PHI International argued that the ballot notice was sufficient and that the ALAE had not demonstrated that the ballot was an unfair industrial practice.

The FWC considered whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information for the employees to make an informed decision. The Commission found that the ballot notice was deficient in that it did not provide adequate information about the proposed protected action, the potential impact of the action on the employees, and the potential impact of the action on the business of PHI International. The Commission held that the ballot was an unfair industrial practice because it did not provide the employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision.

The FWC issued an injunction preventing PHI International from proceeding with the ballot and ordered the company to provide additional information to the employees. The ALAE was awarded costs of the proceedings. The Commission emphasised the importance of providing employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision when conducting a ballot on protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established