United Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 3094

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Thales Australia Limited

(B2022/1741)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited

This is an application by the United 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 Thales Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 21 November 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Ian Madgwick of the Applicant declared on 18 November 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 PR748168.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the United Workers' Union against Thales Australia Limited. The union sought a protected action ballot order under the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of Thales Australia Limited. Thales Australia Limited neither consented nor objected to the application. The Commission was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Thales Australia Limited and that the requirements of the Act had been met. Consequently, the Commission decided to determine the matter on the basis of the documents provided, without a hearing.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had met the requirements under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a ballot for protected industrial action. This required the union to demonstrate that it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that a notification period had elapsed. The union provided a statutory declaration from Ian Madgwick, outlining the bargaining process and confirming the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The Commission found that the union had taken the necessary steps to attempt to reach an agreement with Thales Australia Limited, as evidenced by the statutory declaration. The Commission also determined that the notification period stipulated in the Act had been met. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, granting the protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission issued an Order in PR748168, permitting the United Workers' Union to proceed with the proposed protected action ballot. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence provided by the union, confirming their genuine efforts to negotiate with Thales Australia Limited and the expiration of the notification period. The Commission did not hold a hearing, as Thales Australia Limited neither consented nor objected to the application.

United 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