DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Voice; Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
v
National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd T/A National Patient Transport
(B2018/948)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 22 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by United Voice and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Applicants) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd T/A National Patient Transport (Respondent).

[2] On 17 October 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declarations of Ms O Bartasek and Ms L Fitzpatrick of the respective Applicants setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR701564.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd T/A National Patient Transport, the Federal Court was asked to determine whether the proposed protected action ballot by the employees of the respondent was lawful. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, as the representative of the employees, sought to conduct a ballot to determine if the employees were in favour of protected action. The National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not a genuine attempt by the employees to achieve their objectives.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed ballot was a genuine attempt by the employees to achieve their objectives and whether the ballot was reasonably necessary to achieve those objectives. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which govern protected action in the workplace. The court also had to consider the principles of industrial action and the balance between the rights of employers and employees.

The court found that the proposed ballot was a genuine attempt by the employees to achieve their objectives, as the ballot was necessary to determine whether the employees were in favour of protected action. The court also found that the ballot was reasonably necessary to achieve those objectives, as the employees had not been able to reach an agreement with the employer. The court held that the proposed ballot was lawful and that the respondent was not entitled to an injunction to prevent the ballot. The court also held that the respondent's opposition to the ballot was not reasonable and that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant was entitled to conduct the proposed ballot and that the respondent was not entitled to an injunction to prevent the ballot. The court also ordered that the respondent pay costs to the applicant. The court held that the respondent's opposition to the ballot was not reasonable and that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant. The court also held that the applicant was entitled to recover its costs on the standard basis.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v National Patient Transport Group Pty Ltd T/A National Patient Transport

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established