Health Services Union v Australian Red Cross Blood Service

[2014] FWC 7283

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Health Services Union
v
Australian Red Cross Blood Service
(B2014/1463)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 15 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Red Cross Blood Service.

[1] On 13 October 2014 the Health Services Union (HSU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The Employer was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the Australian Red Cross Blood Service Health Services Union Victoria Enterprise Agreement 2010 (Agreement) which passed its nominal expiry date on 30 June 2014.

[5] On 14 October 2014, Employer confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR556629] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (HSU) sought an order in the Federal Court of Australia to compel the Australian Red Cross Blood Service (ARCBS) to allow a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The dispute centred around the ARCBS' refusal to conduct the ballot, claiming it would interfere with the delivery of critical blood services, potentially impacting public health. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the legality of the ARCBS' decision and whether the union had the right to proceed with the ballot.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the interplay between the right to take protected industrial action and the obligation to provide essential services. The court needed to ascertain whether the proposed ballot would indeed interfere with the provision of essential services to an extent that would significantly impact public health and safety. Additionally, the court had to assess if the ARCBS' decision was reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.

The court found that the ARCBS' refusal to facilitate the ballot was justified as the proposed industrial action could have significantly disrupted the blood supply, posing a serious risk to public health. The court emphasised that the ARCBS had a duty to ensure the continuity of essential services, particularly in a context where the availability of blood products was critical. The court concluded that the potential disruption to blood services constituted a reasonable interference with the provision of essential services, thus upholding the ARCBS' decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the union's application, affirming the ARCBS' right to refuse the ballot under the given circumstances.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established