DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.459—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Banyule Community Health
(B2018/337)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 8 MAY 2018

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2018/166.

[1] On 7 May 2018, the Health Services Union (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to s. 459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to extend the 30 day period for protected action authorised by a protected action ballot order, PR601105 (the Order) made on 13 March 2018. The Order applies to certain employees of Banyule Community Health (the Respondent).

[2] The ballot result, by which a majority of the relevant employees endorsed the proposed forms of protected industrial action, was declared on 12 April 2018. Pursuant to s. 459(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the 30 day period for protected action commenced on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot and therefore expires at midnight on 11 May 2018.

[3] On 8 May 2018, the Commission was advised via email that the Respondent does not oppose the Health Services Union’s application to extend the 30 day period for protected industrial action. Accordingly, I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[4] In addressing s.459(3) of the Act, this application is made by Health Services Union who is the Applicant for which the protected action ballot order was issued. Furthermore, the period specified in s.459(1)(d)(i) has not been previously extended.

[5] On that basis and on the material before me, I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of s.459 of the Act have been met and that a 30 day extension is appropriate. As the 30 day period expires at midnight on 11 May 2018, the extension period will operate from 11 May 2018.

[6] An order has been separately issued in PR606900.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Services Union and Banyule Community Health, the applicant sought an extension of the 30-day period within which to appeal an industrial decision. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the 30-day period for lodging an appeal should be extended, given the applicant's delay in filing the appeal due to certain circumstances.

The Commission considered whether the delay in lodging the appeal was unreasonable and whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted an extension. The applicant argued that the delay was due to a combination of factors, including administrative errors and the complexity of the case. The respondent contended that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for the delay and that an extension would undermine the integrity of the appeal process. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Commission determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the delay was due to any exceptional circumstances. The Commission found that the applicant's reasons for the delay were insufficient to warrant an extension of the 30-day period. The application for an extension was dismissed.

The Commission emphasised the importance of timely appeals and the need for applicants to take reasonable steps to ensure that they meet the deadlines. The decision highlights the stringent approach taken by the Commission in relation to extensions of time for lodging appeals. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Health Services Union v Banyule Community Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established