Health Services Union v Austin Health

Case [2022] FWC 858


[2022] FWC 858

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union

v

Austin Health

(B2022/306)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Austin 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 Austin Health (the Respondent).

  1. On 13 April 2022, I held a mention where the Respondent advised it did not object to the application. However, it raised a number of concerns in relation to the form and content of the draft order. The parties were able to reach a consent position.

  1. 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 declaration of Mr Craig McGregor 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.

  1. The Applicant sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). I am satisfied that TrueVote is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that TrueVote is capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. TrueVote has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and is bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

  1. Therefore I appoint TrueVote as the protected action ballot agent.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR740348.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR740347>

Details
AGLC
Health Services Union v Austin Health [2022] FWC 858
Case
[2022] FWC 858
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (HSU) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Austin Health. The matter was determined by Deputy President Clancy on 13 April 2022, with Austin Health not opposing the application but raising concerns about the form and content of the draft order. After reaching a consent position, the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues for determination were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had passed, whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met, and whether TrueVote Pty Ltd was a fit and proper person to act as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. The HSU submitted a declaration by Mr Craig McGregor that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Austin Health. The parties agreed on the appointment of TrueVote as the ballot agent, with TrueVote agreeing to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 in handling information relating to the ballot.

Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had passed, the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met, and that TrueVote was a fit and proper person to act as the ballot agent. Therefore, TrueVote was appointed as the protected action ballot agent. An order was separately issued in PR740348.

The final orders made by the FWC included the appointment of TrueVote as the ballot agent for the protected action ballot, and the requirement for TrueVote to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 in handling information relating to the ballot.

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.