DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Latrobe Regional Hospital
(B2020/486)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Latrobe Regional Hospital.

[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 Latrobe Regional Hospital (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr P Healey 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR722393.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Services Union and Latrobe Regional Hospital, the Federal Court was tasked with determining the legality of a proposed industrial action ballot by the employees of the hospital. The Health Services Union sought to conduct a ballot amongst its members employed by the hospital, aiming to gauge support for potential protected action. Latrobe Regional Hospital, however, contested the ballot's validity, arguing that it contravened provisions under the Health Services Act.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Health Services Act, specifically whether the proposed ballot was permissible under the statutory framework designed to ensure the continuity of essential health services. The court was required to scrutinise whether the ballot itself, as a precursor to potential protected action, fell within the bounds of the legislative provisions intended to maintain uninterrupted health services.

The court deliberated on the statutory language and its implications, ultimately concluding that the proposed ballot did indeed fall within the legislative exceptions that allow for such actions. The court found that the Health Services Act did not explicitly prohibit a ballot as a preparatory step for potential industrial action, provided it did not result in immediate disruption of services. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Health Services Union, allowing the ballot to proceed, subject to compliance with the statutory requirements aimed at minimising any impact on the continuity of health services. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the right to organise with the imperative to ensure that essential health services remain uninterrupted.

Health Services Union v Latrobe Regional Hospital

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established