Health Services Union v Healthscope Operations Ltd T/A Healthscope

Case [2022] FWC 3045


[2022] FWC 3045

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Health Services Union
v

Healthscope Operations Ltd T/A Healthscope

(B2022/1724)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 16 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Healthscope Operations Ltd Trading As Healthscope

  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 Healthscope Operations Ltd trading as Healthscope (the Respondent).

  1. On 16 November 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Robbie Moore 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.

  1. The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR747989.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747988>

Details
AGLC
Health Services Union v Healthscope Operations Ltd T/A Healthscope [2022] FWC 3045
Case
[2022] FWC 3045
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Healthscope Operations Ltd trading as Healthscope (Respondent). The application was made to seek authorisation for a ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter based on the provided documents without a hearing.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Act for a protected action ballot order were met. This included assessing if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and verifying that the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Another consideration was whether the proposed ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS), was fit and proper to conduct the ballot, including ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and conducting the ballot efficiently. The Applicant provided a declaration from Robbie Moore and a statutory declaration from Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVS, to support their application.

The Deputy President found that the conditions for the ballot order were met, as the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Deputy President was also satisfied that CiVS was a fit and proper person to act as the ballot agent, having relevant experience and agreeing to comply with the Privacy Act 1998. Consequently, the Deputy President approved the application and issued an order for the ballot to proceed with CiVS as the ballot agent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.