Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Latrobe Regional Hospital

[2018] FWC 4681

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

Latrobe Regional Hospital

(B2018/694)

Vice President Catanzariti

SYDNEY, 9 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Latrobe Regional Hospital.

This is an application by The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Latrobe Regional Hospital (Respondent).

On 9 August 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr A Gounis 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR609811.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Latrobe Regional Hospital involved a dispute between the Association and the Latrobe Regional Hospital. The Association, representing the professional engineers, scientists, and managers at the hospital, sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees. This action was aimed at potentially taking industrial action in response to certain grievances or disputes. The Latrobe Regional Hospital, as the employer, opposed the ballot on various grounds, including procedural and jurisdictional objections. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s industrial relations tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed ballot complied with the necessary statutory requirements and whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the ballot notice issued by the Association met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether there were any jurisdictional impediments to the Commission’s ability to hear the matter. The Commission also considered whether the Association had followed the correct procedures in seeking to conduct the ballot.

The Commission found that the Association’s ballot notice did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It was determined that the notice did not include all the information mandated by the Act, which is essential for a valid ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was invalid and could not proceed. Additionally, the Commission concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. Given these findings, the Commission dismissed the application by the Association to hold the ballot. The decision was based on the statutory non-compliance rather than any jurisdictional defects.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established