Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland)

Case [2023] FWC 1461


[2023] FWC 1461

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland)

(B2023/560)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 21 JUNE 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland)

  1. This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU/ 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 Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland) (Ramsay/the Respondent).

  1. The ASU filed the application on 14 June 2023, accompanied by a Form F34B Statutory Declaration in support of the application signed by Alexander Scott, Branch Secretary employed by the ASU.

  1. On 14 June 2023, the Commission’s Bargaining Support Team sent an email to the Respondent asking the Respondent to indicate whether it objected to the application by no later than 12:00PM on 15 June 2023. The parties were advised that if the Respondent objected to the application, the response was to contain details of the basis of the objection, and then outline the statutory basis for its objection.

  1. At 11:42AM on 15 June 2023 the Respondent sent correspondence outlining their objections. The matter was then allocated to me and I listed it for a hearing on 19 June 2023. The Applicant sought an adjournment and the hearing was relisted for 20 June 2023.

Objection

  1. The Respondent raised a number of objections, which included:

1.   that the ASU have made this application by filing and serving a Form F34 that appears to be dated 14 March 2023 (Application);

2.   that at part 1.2 of the Application, the ASU identifies 3 enterprise agreements in respect of which:

·the ASU is not a bargaining representative for any employees who are currently covered by the second or third of those agreements, being the Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd t/a Greenslopes Private Hospital Support Services Employees and the Australian Workers Union of Employees – Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2019 – 2022 and the Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd, the Australian Workers Union and Support Services Employees Enterprise Agreement 2014 – 2018

·the employees who are covered by the above 2 enterprise agreements will not be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement that the Application is in relation to; and

·the ASU has not, and is not genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Ramsay for the purposes of s.443 of the Act.

3.   that at part 2.1 of the Application, the ASU has failed to identify a group of its members that could be the subject of a PABO.

The Hearing

  1. At the commencement of the hearing on 20 June 2023 the parties consented to adjourning into conference to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. In the course of the conference, the parties reached a consent position.

Conclusion

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Alexander Scott, Branch Secretary employed by the ASU, 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 all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) and s.448A(2) of the Act, a ballot period of 30 working days from the date of the Order (21 June 2023) has been established by this Commission.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR763379.


  1. The Commission will separately issue a Notice of Listing and Orders requiring attendance at a conference. Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR763381>

Details
AGLC
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland) [2023] FWC 1461
Case
[2023] FWC 1461
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) applying for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland). The application was filed under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking permission to conduct a ballot among employees regarding proposed protected action. Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd objected to the application, raising concerns about the timeliness and appropriateness of the application, as well as the union's representation of the employees in question.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the ASU had properly filed the application within the required timeframe and whether the union was genuinely attempting to negotiate in good faith with Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd, as mandated by section 443 of the Act. The Respondent argued that the application was dated from a previous month and that the union was not a bargaining representative for all the employees mentioned. Additionally, the union's failure to identify a specific group of members for the ballot was cited as an issue.

The Commission, Commissioner Simpson, found that the ASU had genuinely attempted to negotiate with Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd and had met all the requirements of section 443 of the Act. The ASU's declaration by Alexander Scott, Branch Secretary, provided sufficient evidence of their good-faith bargaining efforts. Consequently, the application was approved, and the Commission ordered the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the ballot, setting a period of 30 working days from the date of the order. Furthermore, separate directions were issued to ensure that the parties attended a conference to conduct meaningful negotiations.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the ASU's application for a protected action ballot order. The Commission established a 30-working-day ballot period and directed the parties to participate in a conference to continue negotiations. This decision affirmed the union's right to proceed with the ballot under the Fair Work Act, ensuring that the employees' voices are heard in the bargaining process.

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.