Health Services Union v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope) Summary

[2022] FWC 1608

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope)

(B2022/607)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope).

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 Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope) (the Respondent).

On 23 June 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 William Gordon Elrick 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 PR742983.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (Applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order allowing a ballot of employees of Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope) (the Respondent) regarding protected action. The application was made due to ongoing negotiations between the union and the Respondent regarding a proposed agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to decide the matter without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The court had to consider the declaration of Mr William Gordon Elrick of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Deputy President concluded that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The court was satisfied with the evidence presented by the union, which demonstrated its efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted.

The court issued an order in PR742983, allowing the Health Services Union to proceed with the ballot of employees of Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital regarding the proposed agreement. The decision was made based on the information provided by the union and the absence of objections from the Respondent.

Health Services Union v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Griffith Rehabilitation Hospital (Healthscope)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established