Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Mercy Health Summary

[2014] FWC 6940

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
v
Mercy Health
(B2014/1423)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 2 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mercy Health.

[1] On 1 October 2014 the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of Mercy Health (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the Mercy Health, Nurses and HASA Staff Residential Care Services Enterprise Agreement 2009-2013 (Agreement) which passed its nominal expiry date on 30 June 2013.

[5] On 1 October 2014, the Employer notified the Commission that it objected to the application. The same day following a short telephone conference with the parties, the ANMF filed an amended Draft Order. The Employer subsequently withdrew its objection to the application.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR556170] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Mercy Health to determine support for protected action. Mercy Health opposed the ballot, arguing that it would interfere with the operations of the hospital and harm patient care. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the legality of the proposed ballot.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot for protected action would unreasonably interfere with the operations of Mercy Health and, if so, whether such interference would be justified under the Fair Work Act. The court had to balance the rights of the employees to organise and engage in protected action against the potential harm to the hospital's operations and patient care.

In considering the matter, the court examined the nature and scope of the proposed ballot, including the timing, the manner in which it would be conducted, and the potential impact on hospital operations. The court also considered the rights of the employees to engage in protected action under the Fair Work Act and the potential harm to the hospital and its patients if the ballot proceeded. Ultimately, the court found that the proposed ballot would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the hospital and harm patient care. The court held that the potential harm to the hospital and its patients outweighed the rights of the employees to organise and engage in protected action. The court issued an injunction preventing the proposed ballot from proceeding.

The court's decision highlights the need for careful consideration of the potential impact of protected action on the operations of an employer and the rights of employees to engage in such action. The decision also underscores the importance of balancing the competing interests of employers and employees in the context of protected action.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Mercy Health

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established