Health Services Union v Grampians Health

[2022] FWC 416

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

Grampians Health

(B2022/117)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Grampians Health.

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 Grampians Health (Respondent).

On 25 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Craig 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738800.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Grampians Health (Respondent). The application was made to allow the Applicant to hold a ballot among its members to decide on taking protected action in the form of a strike or other industrial action. The Respondent did not object to the application and, in the circumstances, the Deputy President Clancy determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether the Applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act, including the notification time, and whether the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Deputy President found that the Applicant had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act, including the notification time, and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Deputy President was satisfied that the Applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Deputy President issued an order in PR738800 allowing the Applicant to hold a ballot among its members to decide on taking protected action. The order was based on the evidence provided by the Applicant, including the declaration of Mr Craig McGregor, and the fact that the Respondent did not object to the application. The Deputy President concluded that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met, and that it was appropriate to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established