Australian Municipal and Administrative Clerical Services Union Queensland Together Branch v Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Blood Service Queensland

[2018] FWC 2218

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal and Administrative Clerical Services Union Queensland Together Branch

Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Blood Service - Queensland

(B2018/269)

Vice President Catanzariti

ALICE SPRINGS, 18 APRIL 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Red Cross Blood Service - Queensland.

This is an application by the Australian Municipal and Administrative Clerical Services Union Queensland Together Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Australian Red Cross Society T/A Australian Red Cross Blood Service - Queensland (Respondent).

On 17 April 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms K Flanders 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 PR602097.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal and Administrative Clerical Services Union Queensland Together Branch sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Red Cross Blood Service Queensland was valid. The union was concerned that the ballot, which was intended to include questions about both protected and unprotected actions, might be invalid because the Australian Red Cross Society had not given the union an opportunity to make submissions on the questions included in the ballot. The Australian Red Cross Society argued that the ballot was valid and that the union's request for a declaration was an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The central issue before the commission was whether the Australian Red Cross Society was required to give the union an opportunity to make submissions on the questions included in the proposed ballot before the ballot was conducted. The union argued that the requirement for the Australian Red Cross Society to give the union an opportunity to make submissions was set out in clause 5.2 of the Queensland Health (State) Industrial Agreement. The Australian Red Cross Society argued that the union was not entitled to make submissions on the questions included in the ballot because the union had not been involved in negotiating the agreement.

The commission found that the requirement for the Australian Red Cross Society to give the union an opportunity to make submissions on the questions included in the proposed ballot was not set out in clause 5.2 of the Queensland Health (State) Industrial Agreement. The commission held that the union was not entitled to make submissions on the questions included in the ballot because the union had not been involved in negotiating the agreement. The commission further held that the union's request for a declaration was an abuse of process. The commission dismissed the union's application.

The commission ordered the union to pay the Australian Red Cross Society's costs of the proceeding.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established