The Australian Workers' Union v BAE Systems Australia Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 541

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

BAE Systems Australia Limited

(B2022/166)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 10 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BAE Systems Australia Limited

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (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 BAE Systems Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 9 March 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 John Boyd of the Applicant declared on 3 March 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 PR739211.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of BAE Systems Australia Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for the holding of a ballot where an organisation has been bargaining in good faith and cannot reach agreement with an employer. The application was made on 9 March 2022 and the Fair Work Commission was advised that BAE Systems Australia Limited did not oppose the application.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Australian Workers' Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot under section 443 of the Fair Work Act. The court needed to determine if the union had genuinely been trying to reach agreement with BAE Systems Australia Limited and if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The court also needed to consider if the union had complied with the notification requirements under section 443(1) of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Australian Workers' Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot. The court was satisfied that the union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with BAE Systems Australia Limited and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The court also found that the union had complied with the notification requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. As a result, the court issued an Order for a protected action ballot to be held.

No further orders were made by the court. An Order was separately issued in PR739211. The decision was made on the papers without holding a hearing, based on the material before the court, including the statutory declaration of John Boyd of the Applicant.

The Australian Workers' Union v BAE Systems Australia Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established