DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria Branch)
v
Melbourne IVF
(B2018/518)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 3 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Melbourne IVF.

[1] This is an application by Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria 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 Melbourne IVF (Respondent).

[2] On 2 July 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B Megennis 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR608679.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria Branch) brought a case against Melbourne IVF concerning a proposed industrial action ballot of the employees of Melbourne IVF. The union sought to hold a protected action ballot among its members, who were employed by Melbourne IVF, to gauge support for potential industrial action. Melbourne IVF challenged the union's right to conduct this ballot, raising objections about the proposed ballot's scope and the union's eligibility to organise the employees.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had the authority to organise and conduct a protected action ballot for the employees of Melbourne IVF. Melbourne IVF contended that the union's proposed ballot was invalid as it included employees who were not appropriately represented by the union and that the ballot sought to authorise a range of industrial action that was not consistent with the union's authority. The court had to determine the scope of the union's rights and obligations under the relevant industrial laws in this context.

In its decision, the court found that the union did have the authority to organise and conduct a protected action ballot for the employees of Melbourne IVF. The court held that the union was appropriately recognised as the bargaining agent for the employees in question and that the proposed ballot was within the scope of the union's authority. The court rejected Melbourne IVF's arguments about the inappropriateness of the ballot's scope and found that the union's proposed ballot was valid. Consequently, the union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned.

The court's decision confirmed the union's right to organise and conduct a protected action ballot for its members employed by Melbourne IVF, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the court's judgment. The union was allowed to proceed with the ballot as it had proposed, and Melbourne IVF was required to facilitate the union's efforts in this regard. The court's decision provided clarity on the union's rights and responsibilities in this context and resolved the dispute between the parties.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria Branch) v Melbourne IVF

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established