Health Services Union v I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1033

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd

(B2025/620)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Health Services Union (HSU) made under s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd (I-MED).

On 10 April 2025, the Commission was advised that I-MED objected to the application and wished to be heard. However, on 11 April 2025, the parties confirmed that they had reached a consent position. 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 Craig McGregor, branch secretary of the HSU, which sets out the steps taken by the HSU in bargaining with I-ME, I am satisfied that the HSU has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with I-MED. I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s 443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). TrueVote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s 468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

For the purposes of s 443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 15 working says from the date of the order, which is 2 May 2025. This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s 448A(2) of the Act.

An Order has been separately issued in PR786051.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Health Services Union (HSU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd. The proposed ballot aimed to ascertain employee support for potential industrial action. The Commission was initially informed of I-MED's objection to the application, necessitating a hearing. However, upon confirmation from both parties that they had reached a consensus, the Deputy President, Colman, decided to adjudicate the matter based on the submitted documents without conducting a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the HSU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with I-MED and whether all statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. This included verifying the notification period for the proposed agreement and ensuring compliance with section 443(1) of the Act. Additionally, the Commission had to determine the closing date for voting and establish the ballot period under section 448A(2) of the Act.

After reviewing the materials, including a declaration by Craig McGregor, the branch secretary of the HSU, the Deputy President was satisfied that the HSU had genuinely been negotiating with I-MED. The Commission confirmed that the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid and that all prerequisites outlined in section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. The ballot was to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd, an approved agent under section 468A of the Act. Consequently, the Deputy President set the closing date for voting at 15 working days from the date of the order, which was 2 May 2025, establishing the ballot period as per section 443(3)(c) of the Act.

Health Services Union v I-MED Victoria Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established