Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Lifeblood

Case [2024] FWC 1265


[2024] FWC 1265

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v

Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Lifeblood

(B2024/537)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 15 MAY 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Red Cross Society

  1. This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Australian Red Cross Society trading as Australian Red Cross Lifeblood (Lifeblood or Employer).

  1. I note that the Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch (HSU4) and the Health Services Union Vic No. 3 Branch (HSU3) have each made a separate application for a protected action ballot order in relation to the same proposed agreement.[1]

  1. On 14 May 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer did not object to the Application.

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Eduardo Antonio Gonzalez Ponce, Union Official, setting out the steps taken by the APESMA in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Lifeblood, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of 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 27 May 2024.[2] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR775016.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference along with the other related matters B2024/536 and B2024/538. To the extent that this matter involves any additional bargaining representatives, that Member will issue an Order requiring their attendance in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] B2024/536, B2024/538.

[2] This is seven (7) days after the anticipated commencement date of the ballot, as sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR775017>

Details
AGLC
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Lifeblood [2024] FWC 1265
Case
[2024] FWC 1265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (APESMA) and the Australian Red Cross Society trading as Australian Red Cross Lifeblood (Lifeblood). APESMA applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Lifeblood. The Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch (HSU4) and the Health Services Union Vic No. 3 Branch (HSU3) also made separate applications for a protected action ballot order regarding the same proposed agreement. Lifeblood did not object to APESMA’s application.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under section 443 of the Fair Work Act were satisfied. Specifically, the FWC needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if all the prerequisites outlined in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Additionally, the FWC needed to ensure that the ballot would be conducted by an approved agent and to set a closing date for the ballot in line with section 443(3)(c) of the Act.

The FWC concluded that APESMA had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Lifeblood and that all requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. The FWC approved Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS) as the ballot agent, authorised under section 468A of the Act. The FWC set the closing date for the ballot as 27 May 2024, seven days after the anticipated commencement of the ballot. The FWC also determined that the matter would proceed to a compulsory conciliation conference with other related matters, assigning it to another member for further negotiation.

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.