DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Health Services Union
v
Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd
(B2020/490)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd.

[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 Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd (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 PR722404.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Health Services Union v Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd, the plaintiff, Health Services Union, sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd was lawful and enforceable. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The Health Services Union argued that the proposed ballot, which aimed to gauge employee support for protected industrial action, complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd contested the ballot's validity, asserting that it did not meet the statutory requirements under the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements under the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on the timing and content of the ballot notice. Key issues included whether the ballot notice sufficiently informed the employees about the proposed industrial action and whether it adhered to the procedural standards set out in the Act. The court also needed to assess whether the proposed ballot was a genuine step towards protected action as required by the legislation.

In its decision, the court found that the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements. The ballot notice was deemed to have adequately informed the employees about the proposed industrial action, including its nature, timing, and potential impact. The court held that the notice provided sufficient detail to allow employees to make an informed decision regarding the proposed action. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Health Services Union, declaring that the proposed ballot was lawful and enforceable. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and comprehensive communication in the industrial action process to ensure compliance with the legislative framework.

Health Services Union v Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established