DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions Pty Limited
(B2016/593)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 31 MAY 2016

Application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union for revocation of a protected action ballot Order.

[1] On 9 May 2016, upon the application of the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (the AMWU), the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) made a protected action ballot Order [PR580020], (the Order). The Order was made in respect of specified employees of Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions Pty Limited (the employer).

[2] On 31 May 2016, the AMWU made an application pursuant to s.448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for revocation of the Order.

[3] The Order at point 5 stated that the protected action ballot is to close no later than 20 working days from the date of the Order.

[4] Therefore, pursuant to subsection 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Order. A Revocation Order [PR581055] is issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for the revocation of a protected action ballot Order, which had been issued in response to a dispute with Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions Pty Limited. The AMWU sought to conduct protected industrial action, including a ban on overtime and after-hours work, and a work-to-rule campaign, to pressure Fuji Xerox to comply with certain demands, including the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement. Fuji Xerox opposed the application, arguing that the AMWU's demands were unreasonable and that the protected action ballot was necessary to ensure that employees could exercise their rights without coercion.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU's demands were reasonable and whether the protected action ballot was necessary to protect employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action. The Commission considered the nature and scope of the AMWU's demands, the terms of the existing enterprise agreement, and the circumstances of the dispute. The Commission also considered the impact of the protected action ballot on the employees' ability to exercise their rights and on the operation of Fuji Xerox's business.

In its decision, the Commission found that the AMWU's demands were unreasonable and that the protected action ballot was necessary to protect employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action. The Commission noted that the AMWU's demands went beyond what was reasonably necessary to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome and that the protected action ballot was necessary to ensure that employees could exercise their rights without coercion. The Commission rejected the AMWU's application for the revocation of the protected action ballot Order.

As a result of the decision, the protected action ballot Order remains in place, and the AMWU is unable to take protected industrial action until the ballot is conducted and the necessary majority is obtained. The Commission's decision provides important guidance on the factors that it will consider when determining whether to issue or revoke a protected action ballot Order and the scope of its powers in this regard.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Fuji Xerox Document Management Solutions Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established