Health Services Union v Healthcare Imaging Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd T/A Lumus Imaging

[2022] FWC 641

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

Healthcare Imaging Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd T/A Lumus Imaging

(B2022/222)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Healthcare Imaging Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd T/A Lumus Imaging.

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 Healthcare Imaging Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd T/A Lumus Imaging (the Respondent).

On 24 March 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 PR739617.

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 Healthcare Imaging Services (Victoria) Pty Ltd T/A Lumus Imaging (the Respondent). The application arose from negotiations between the parties regarding a proposed agreement. The matter was heard by Deputy President Clancy, who determined it on the papers submitted by the Applicant, as the Respondent did not object to the application. The central issue before the Deputy President was whether the conditions for granting a protected action ballot order were met, particularly whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied.

The Deputy President found that the material submitted by the Applicant, including a declaration by Mr Craig McGregor of the Applicant, demonstrated that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken the necessary steps in the bargaining process. The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the Deputy President determined to grant the application for a protected action ballot order.

In light of the Deputy President's findings, an order was issued in PR739617, allowing the Health Services Union to proceed with a protected action ballot among the specified employees of Lumus Imaging. This decision ensures that the union can take appropriate steps in the bargaining process and facilitates further negotiations between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established