The Australian Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 123

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2013/10)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 8 JANUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Thales Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AWU filed a statement dated 7 January 2013 made by Mr Terry O’Connor, an Organiser of the AWU.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AWU, that the AWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR532954] based on the draft order provided by the AWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Thales Australia Limited. Thales contested the ballot, leading to a legal dispute that was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia. The union aimed to facilitate a vote on potential protected actions, while Thales opposed the ballot on several grounds, including the composition of the employee group eligible to vote.

The court had to determine whether the proposed ballot met the legal requirements for protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the union had correctly identified the appropriate bargaining unit and if the proposed ballot was in line with the provisions of the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether Thales had valid reasons to oppose the ballot.

The court found that the union had correctly identified the bargaining unit and that the proposed ballot adhered to the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The union's ballot proposal was deemed lawful, and the court rejected Thales' objections. The decision underscored the importance of procedural correctness in organising protected action ballots. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed as planned.

No further orders were made beyond the ruling that the ballot could proceed. The court's decision highlighted the need for careful adherence to legislative provisions when organising employee ballots for protected actions.

The Australian Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established