DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Alfred Health
(B2020/479)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Alfred Health.

[1] This is an application by the Health Services Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Alfred Health (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr P Healey 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 PR722377.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Health Services Union v Alfred Health, the Health Services Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Alfred Health, a public hospital in Victoria. The dispute centred around the employees' intention to engage in industrial action, including a potential strike, to address grievances related to their employment conditions. Alfred Health, in turn, contested the legality and appropriateness of the proposed ballot, arguing that it might disrupt essential health services and potentially breach certain statutory provisions.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Health Services Act 1997 (Vic) and the Health Services (Industrial Matters) (Health Services Union) Agreement 2019. The court had to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements set forth in these statutes and agreements. Specifically, the court examined whether the ballot could proceed without causing undue disruption to essential health services and whether it adhered to the specific procedures outlined in the legislation and collective agreements.

The court found that the proposed ballot did not meet the necessary criteria for compliance with the statutory requirements. It held that the ballot risked significant disruption to the delivery of essential health services, which the legislation prioritised. Furthermore, the court determined that the ballot did not adhere to the procedural requirements set out in the Health Services (Industrial Matters) (Health Services Union) Agreement 2019. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Alfred Health, prohibiting the Health Services Union from proceeding with the ballot.

The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in industrial action with the obligation to maintain essential health services. It highlighted the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions and collective agreements in the context of public health services. The final orders of the court included an injunction preventing the Health Services Union from conducting the proposed ballot and a declaration that the ballot was unlawful under the relevant legislation.

Health Services Union v Alfred Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established