National Union of Workers v ACCO Australia Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 8550

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
ACCO Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/1120)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 28 NOVEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ACCO Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the National Union of Workers (NUW) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ACCO Australia Pty Ltd (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 NUW filed a statement dated 26 November 2014 made by Mr Ron Herbert, Organiser with the NUW. Mr Herbert’s statement advises that approximately 5 meetings have been held with the Employer with the intention of reaching an agreement.

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

[5] An order [PR558346] based on the draft order provided by the NUW is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against ACCO Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the union's proposal to conduct a ballot of employees for protected industrial action. ACCO Australia sought to prevent the ballot on the grounds that it was not related to a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the ballot was a legitimate step in the process of protecting its members' rights and interests. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Fair Work Act provisions concerning protected action and the procedural requirements for conducting a lawful ballot.

The Commission examined the legislative framework and the union's actions to determine whether the ballot was genuinely related to protected action. It considered whether the union had followed the correct procedures and whether the proposed action was in pursuit of a genuine workplace dispute. The Commission also evaluated the nature of the dispute and whether it was related to the employees' conditions of employment, terms of employment, or employment itself. The union's submissions emphasised the importance of allowing employees to exercise their rights to take protected action in pursuit of their interests. Conversely, ACCO Australia argued that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements and was not genuinely related to a protected action.

After considering the evidence and arguments from both parties, the Commission concluded that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for protected action. The Commission found that the union had not demonstrated a genuine workplace dispute related to the employees' conditions of employment, terms of employment, or employment itself. As a result, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not authorised under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established