Ambulance Employees Association Western Australia Inc. T/A Aeawa v St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd T/A St John Ambulance WA

Case [2025] FWC 857


[2025] FWC 857

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 437—Protected action

Ambulance Employees Association Western Australia Inc. T/A AEAWA
v

St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd T/A St John Ambulance WA

(B2025/512)

COMMISSIONER LIM

PERTH, 27 MARCH 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd.

  1. This decision concerns the Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia Inc.’s application under s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd.

  1. The application was made on Tuesday 25 March 2025. St John objected to questions in the proposed ballot. I conducted a conference with the parties on Wednesday 26 March 2025. As a result of the conference, the parties reached a consensus position on amendments to the Draft Order and St John withdrew its objections to the application.

  1. The AEAWA provided the declaration of Mr John Thomas, Station Manager, which set out the history of bargaining to date. It is not in contest – and I find – that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all the requirements in s 443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS). CiVS has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s 468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

  1. For the purposes of s 443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is Monday 14 April 2025. This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s 448A(2) of the Act.

  1. Pursuant to section 443(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that there are relevant exceptional circumstances justifying an extended period of written notice for the purposes of s 414(2)(b) of the Act being longer than three (3) working days. By consent, the Commission has specified five (5) working days as the minimum period of written notice required in respect of the proposed industrial action taken by employees arising from the ballot questions in Clause 5 of the Order.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR785590.

  1. Upon issuing a protected action ballot order the Commission is required by s 448A of the Act to also make an order directing the bargaining representatives to attend a conference for the purpose of mediation or conciliation in relation to the proposed agreement. An order and directions will accordingly be issued from my Chambers requiring that the parties attend a conference.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

D Higgins for the Applicant.
J Parkinson for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2025.
Perth, by Video using Microsoft Teams:
26 March.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR785589>

Details
AGLC
Ambulance Employees Association Western Australia Inc. T/A Aeawa v St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd T/A St John Ambulance WA [2025] FWC 857
Case
[2025] FWC 857
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with a matter concerning the Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia Inc., trading as AEAWA, which sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was filed on 25 March 2025. St John Ambulance Western Australia Ltd. initially objected to certain questions proposed for the ballot. The Commission, led by Commissioner Lim, held a conference with the parties on 26 March 2025, which resulted in an agreement on amendments to the Draft Order, leading St John to withdraw its objections.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the application met the requirements under section 443 of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically the notification time and whether all conditions in section 443(1) had been fulfilled. Additionally, the court had to decide on the timing and duration of the ballot period and the notice period required for the proposed industrial action. It was also necessary to ensure that the ballot was conducted by an approved agent, in this case, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS), and to address any exceptional circumstances that might warrant an extension of the notice period beyond the standard three working days.

The Commission found that the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Commission determined that voting would close on 14 April 2025, setting the ballot period accordingly. It was also established that exceptional circumstances justified extending the written notice period to five working days. The Commission issued an Order specifying this extended notice period. Furthermore, the Commission mandated that the bargaining representatives attend a conference for mediation or conciliation regarding the proposed agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.