DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Eastern Health
(B2020/484)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Eastern 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 Eastern Health (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr P Healey 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 PR722389.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Health Services Union was a case heard by the Fair Work Commission, where the Union sought approval for a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Eastern Health. The Union aimed to ascertain whether the employees could legally undertake protected action by means of a ballot, and if the ballot could proceed without interference from Eastern Health. The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of certain provisions within the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the procedural requirements for protected action ballots in the healthcare sector.

The central legal issue was whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory framework set out by the Fair Work Act, particularly regarding the notice and information requirements for employees. The Commission had to determine if the Union's proposed ballot met the legislative criteria, including whether it provided sufficient information to employees about the proposed industrial action and the implications of participating in the ballot. The Union argued that its proposed ballot was in line with the legal requirements, while Eastern Health contended that the ballot did not comply with the necessary standards and should not proceed.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the Union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised that the ballot did not provide adequate information to employees about the potential consequences of participating in the proposed industrial action, including the impact on patient care and the availability of services. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot could not proceed without amendments to ensure compliance with the statutory notice and information requirements. The decision underscored the importance of clear communication and transparency in industrial action ballots to protect both employee rights and public health interests.

Health Services Union v Eastern Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established