Have just read the decision here
[2011] FWAFB 7444
[10] It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day.
[11] We find that the requirements of s.424(1) have been made out with respect to the action of which Qantas has given notice in relation to the three proposed enterprise agreements. In the circumstances we are required to make an order either terminating or suspending the protected action.
So it was only Qantas's protected industrial action which met the requirements of s 424(1). Why then was the protected industrial action by the unions, which FWA found did
not meet the requirements of the section, also terminated?
Any legal minds able to provide a judicial decision in relation to this?
There is case law that terminating can be done for all action.