The Australian Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited

[2022] FWC 2801

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

Thales Australia Limited

(B2022/1572)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Ltd - Thales Australia Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2019

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 Thales Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 18 October 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Mick Derrick 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR746967.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against Thales Australia Limited, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees. The matter was before the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Clancy presiding over the case in Melbourne on 18 October 2022. The application was made in relation to the Thales Australia Bendigo Enterprise Agreement 2019, and the Union sought to conduct a ballot to propose protected action. Thales Australia Limited did not object to the application, leading Deputy President Clancy to determine the matter on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, including the notification time for the proposed agreement and the Union's genuine attempt to reach an agreement with Thales Australia Limited. The Union had provided a declaration from Mr Mick Derrick, detailing the steps taken in bargaining with Thales Australia Limited and the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

Deputy President Clancy examined the material presented, including Mr Derrick's declaration, and concluded that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the Union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Thales Australia Limited. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved. An order was separately issued in PR746967.

This decision highlights the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating fair and effective industrial relations processes, ensuring that unions and employers can engage in good faith negotiations and, when necessary, take appropriate action to protect their members' interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established