Health Services Union v Australian Red Cross Blood Service

[2014] FWC 7144

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Australian Red Cross Blood Service
(B2014/1445)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2014

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

[1] On 7 October 2014 the Health Services Union (HSU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of 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 9 October 2014, the 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 [PR556420] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service opposed the ballot, leading to a legal dispute before the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine if the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute, and if it was conducted in a manner consistent with the Act's requirements.

The Fair Work Commission examined the nature of the dispute and the proposed ballot's purpose. It considered whether the ballot was genuinely intended to resolve an industrial dispute, and whether it was conducted fairly and in good faith. The Commission also assessed if the ballot complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act, including whether proper notice was given and if the ballot was conducted in a manner that did not unfairly prejudice the employer. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was not a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute and did not comply with the Act's procedural requirements. The ballot was deemed to be unfairly prejudicial to the employer.

The Fair Work Commission decided that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for a protected action ballot and was not conducted in a manner consistent with the Act. The Commission rejected the Union's application, finding that the ballot was not a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute and failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented and its interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service's opposition to the ballot was upheld, and the proposed ballot was disallowed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established