DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Thales Australia Limited
(B2019/1313)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application by the United 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).

[2] On 15 November 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr R Payne 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 PR714311.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited to ascertain their willingness to engage in protected industrial action. Thales opposed the ballot, arguing that the union's proposal did not comply with the statutory requirements for such ballots. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the union's ballot proposal was in compliance with the statutory provisions governing industrial action, specifically section 322 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the ballot complied with the requirements that it be in writing and specify the industrial action in sufficient detail, including its intended duration and timing.

The Commission examined the wording of the union's ballot proposal and compared it to the statutory requirements. Thales argued that the ballot did not specify the proposed duration and timing of the action with sufficient clarity. The union contended that the ballot provided adequate detail and that the Commission should not substitute its own interpretation for that of the employees. The Commission found that the ballot did not specify the duration of the action in precise terms, and the timing was not detailed enough to allow employees to make an informed decision. The wording of the ballot was deemed insufficiently specific, leading to a failure to meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Commission determined that the ballot was invalid and dismissed the union's application.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that the union's ballot proposal did not comply with the statutory requirements and was therefore invalid. As a result, the Commission did not grant the union's application to conduct the ballot. The decision underscores the importance of precision in drafting ballots to ensure compliance with legislative mandates. The final order of the Commission was that the application for the proposed protected action ballot be dismissed.

United Workers' Union v Thales Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established