DECISION

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

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The
v
Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2018/231)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 APRIL 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[2] On 5 April 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms J Hensman 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 PR601780.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd, the applicants sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine their support for protected action. Integria Healthcare opposed the ballot on the basis that it would unduly disrupt the workplace and was not necessary for the protection of employee interests. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot would cause undue disruption to the workplace and if the applicants had adequately demonstrated the necessity of the ballot for the protection of employees' interests. The Commission had to weigh the potential disruption against the importance of the proposed protected action and the rights of employees to organise and take collective action.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was likely to cause significant disruption to the workplace, as it would involve a substantial number of employees and require a significant amount of time and resources. However, the Commission also recognised the importance of employee rights to organise and take collective action, and found that the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient level of support for the proposed protected action. The Commission concluded that the potential benefits of the ballot outweighed the potential disruption and granted the applicants' request to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the applicants be permitted to conduct a ballot of employees to determine their support for protected action. The Commission also ordered that the ballot be conducted in a manner that minimised disruption to the workplace and that the applicants provide reasonable notice to Integria Healthcare of the proposed ballot.

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, The v Integria Healthcare (Australia) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established