DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
DPV Health Ltd T/A DPV Health
(B2018/277)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 APRIL 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of DPV Health Ltd.

[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 DPV Health Ltd T/A DPV Health (Respondent).

[2] On 19 April 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr C 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR602142.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Health Services Union sought authorisation for its members employed by DPV Health Ltd to conduct a proposed industrial action ballot. DPV Health opposed the application on various grounds, including that the ballot was not in relation to an industrial dispute and that it did not comply with procedural requirements. The Commission had to determine whether the proposed ballot related to an industrial dispute and whether the application complied with the necessary procedural requirements.

The Commission examined the terms of the proposed ballot and the nature of the dispute between the parties. It considered whether the ballot related to an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also evaluated whether the application for authorisation complied with the procedural requirements set out in the regulations. In particular, the Commission considered whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information to the employees and whether the application was lodged within the required timeframe.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot related to an industrial dispute and that the application complied with the necessary procedural requirements. The Commission noted that the ballot related to the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement and that there were genuine differences between the parties in relation to the terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the ballot notice provided sufficient information to the employees and that the application was lodged within the required timeframe. Accordingly, the Commission authorised the proposed ballot of employees.

The Commission ordered that the Health Services Union be granted authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot of its members employed by DPV Health Ltd. The Commission also ordered that the ballot notice be provided to the employees and that the ballot be conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act and the regulations.

Health Services Union v DPV Health Ltd T/A DPV Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established