DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Airbus Australia Pacific Limited
(B2019/660)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

PERTH, 14 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Airbus Australia Pacific Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Airbus Australia Pacific Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 13 August 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Christopher Donovan 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR711323.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on behalf of its members employed by Airbus Australia Pacific Limited (Airbus). Airbus, a company operating in the aerospace industry, had proposed a ballot to its employees regarding protected action. The Union sought to challenge the ballot's validity and the process by which Airbus intended to conduct it. The central legal issues revolved around whether Airbus had acted appropriately in its management of the proposed industrial action and whether the ballot process was fair and in compliance with relevant industrial laws. The FWC was required to determine if Airbus's actions were procedurally correct and whether the ballot was an appropriate mechanism for the employees to express their views on the proposed action.

The FWC considered the procedural fairness of Airbus's actions and examined the adequacy of the information provided to employees during the ballot process. The court scrutinised whether Airbus had correctly followed the necessary procedures as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the ballot was an appropriate means for the employees to engage in protected action. The FWC concluded that Airbus had not adequately informed the employees about the implications of the proposed action and the ballot process. Airbus's failure to provide comprehensive and accurate information meant the ballot process was not fair. The FWC found that Airbus's actions were procedurally flawed, leading to an invalid ballot. Consequently, the FWC ruled that the proposed ballot was not a legitimate means for the employees to engage in protected action.

In light of the findings, the FWC ordered Airbus to cease the proposed ballot and to take appropriate steps to ensure employees were properly informed about the implications of any future protected action. The FWC emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in industrial relations processes and highlighted the necessity for employers to provide employees with accurate and comprehensive information. The Union's application was successful, and Airbus was directed to correct its approach to future industrial action processes.

The Australian Workers' Union v Airbus Australia Pacific Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established