Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited

Case [2023] FWC 2786


[2023] FWC 2786

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
v

Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited

(B2023/1153)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 24 OCTOBER 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited.

  1. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) has made an application under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited (the Respondent).

  1. The Respondent notified an objection to the application in respect to the notification time of all of the proposed industrial action to be balloted and raised a number of concerns in respect to the proposed industrial action to be balloted. I notified the parties that the concerns in respect to the nature of the proposed industrial action is not relevant for my consideration as to whether a protected action ballot order should be made. I caused my chambers to advise that if the Respondent opposes the application, particularly in relation to the notification time, an in-person hearing would be arranged for 25 October 2023.

  1. On 24 October 2023, the Respondent wrote to my chambers advising that the parties have reached agreement in respect to the objection, as discussed below. The ANMF wrote to my Chambers shortly after, confirming it agrees to increasing the notice period to five working days. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms Trevascus, setting out the steps taken by the ANMF in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming that the ANMF has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am also satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. I am satisfied that the ANMF has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the Act.

  1. The parties reached a consent position during private discussions regarding the period of written notice referred to in s.414(2)(a) of the Act being longer than three working days for all the questions within the order. The parties considered it appropriate, having regard to the nature of the industry that the Respondent operates in, for the Respondent to be provided with five working days’ notice for questions 1 to 8, inclusive.

  1. Section 443(5) of the Act gives the Commission the discretion, where it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice being longer than three days, to specify a longer period of up to seven working days’ notice.

  1. In my view, specifying a longer period of notice of five working days for all the questions within the Order is justified by the particular exceptional circumstances in this case as detailed in the Respondent’s response, particularly ensuring that appropriate contingency arrangements are put in place for the provision of emergency medical services.

  1. The protected action ballot order will specify a required period of notice of at least five working days for questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). TrueVote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.[1]

  1. The scheme of the Act is now that where named in the PABO application and proposed orders, the Commission will, subject to the Act, be obliged to, in effect, appoint that eligible protected action ballot agent to conduct the ballot concerns.

  1. The Order [PR767571] will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

  1. This matter will be listed for a s.448A conference. An Order and Direction will be issued shortly requiring attendance at the conference.


COMMISSIONER


[1] TrueVote Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1446.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR767572>

Details
AGLC
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited [2023] FWC 2786
Case
[2023] FWC 2786
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) applied for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (Queensland Section) Limited (the Respondent). The Respondent objected to the application, specifically regarding the notification time of the proposed industrial action. The Commissioner determined the matter on the papers, following an agreement between the parties regarding the extension of the notice period from three to five working days.

The primary legal issue was whether the ANMF had complied with the notice requirements under section 440 of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the extended notice period of five working days was justified due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the Respondent, particularly in relation to ensuring appropriate contingency arrangements for emergency medical services. The court had to balance the union's right to organise and conduct a ballot with the employer's need to manage the impact of potential industrial action effectively.

The Commissioner found that the ANMF had indeed given notice in accordance with section 440 of the Act and that the requirements of section 443(1) were met. The Commissioner also concluded that the extended notice period of five working days was justified due to the exceptional circumstances, particularly the need to ensure appropriate contingency arrangements for the provision of emergency medical services. The Commissioner approved the use of TrueVote Pty Ltd as the ballot agent, as it had been approved under section 468A of the Act. The court issued a protected action ballot order specifying the required notice period and authorised TrueVote to conduct the ballot. The matter will be listed for a section 448A conference to address other aspects of the proposed industrial action.

The final orders of the court include the issuance of a protected action ballot order specifying a required notice period of at least five working days for questions 1 to 8. The ballot will be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd, which has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent. An Order and Direction will be issued to require attendance at a section 448A conference to address other aspects of the proposed industrial action.

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.