DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Melbourne City Mission
(B2020/760)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 30 NOVEMBER 2020

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 30 November 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 C 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 PR725005.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union and the Melbourne City Mission appeared before the Fair Work Commission in a dispute regarding proposed protected action by the employees of the Mission. The Union sought authorisation for a protected action ballot to be conducted among its members, which were employees of Melbourne City Mission. The Mission opposed the ballot, asserting that it would cause significant harm to its operations and the community it serves.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed action constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether the potential harm to the Mission's operations and the community outweighed the employees' right to take such action. The Commission had to determine whether the proposed action was genuinely in pursuit of a workplace-related objective and whether the harm to the Mission's operations was disproportionate to the benefit of the employees.

The Commission found that the proposed action constituted protected action as it was in pursuit of a workplace-related objective, specifically to address workplace conditions and dispute resolution processes. The Commission further found that the potential harm to the Mission's operations and the community was not disproportionate to the benefits of the employees taking the action. The Commission was satisfied that the employees had a genuine interest in pursuing their workplace-related objectives and that the protected action was an appropriate means of doing so. The authorisation for the ballot was granted.

The Fair Work Commission authorised the Health Services Union to conduct a protected action ballot among its members employed by Melbourne City Mission. This decision allows the employees to pursue their workplace-related objectives through the proposed action, provided that it remains within the bounds of protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009.

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