DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Melbourne City Mission
(B2021/196)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Melbourne City Mission.

[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 Melbourne City Mission (Respondent).

[2] On 22 March 2021, 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 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR727978.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union, acting on behalf of its members employed by Melbourne City Mission, sought a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot did not comply with the necessary requirements under the relevant industrial legislation. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the ballot notice issued by the Union, which Melbourne City Mission argued did not meet the statutory requirements for a valid ballot.

The central legal issue was whether the ballot notice complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the notice provided sufficient information to enable members to make an informed decision and if the ballot was conducted in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements. The Union argued that the ballot notice was adequate, while Melbourne City Mission contended that it failed to meet the statutory standards.

The Commission held that the ballot notice did not comply with the requirements of the Act. The notice was deemed insufficient because it did not adequately inform the members of the potential consequences of the proposed action, including the impact on services provided by Melbourne City Mission. The Commission found that the notice lacked specific details necessary for members to make an informed decision, thereby failing to satisfy the statutory obligations. As a result, the Commission ruled that the ballot was invalid.

Consequently, the Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot did not proceed as it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive communication in industrial action processes to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.

Health Services Union v Melbourne City Mission

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established