DECISION

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

Health Services Union
v
Mildura Base Public Hospital
(B2020/541)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mildura Base Public 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 Mildura Base Public Hospital (Respondent).

[2] On 17 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 PR722887.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Health Services Union versus Mildura Base Public Hospital involved a dispute regarding a proposed industrial action ballot of the employees of the hospital. The Health Services Union, representing the employees, sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, which included nurses, midwives, and other healthcare workers employed by the hospital. The hospital opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not in the best interest of patient care and could potentially disrupt essential services. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is the primary body for resolving employment disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the associated regulations concerning protected industrial action. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for protected action, including the necessity of providing the employer with a protected action notice and ensuring that the proposed action did not unduly harm patient care or public health. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the employees' intentions were bona fide and whether the action was necessary to protect their working conditions and entitlements.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had adequately followed the procedural requirements for the protected action ballot, including providing the necessary notices to the employer. The Commission also considered the potential impact of the proposed action on patient care and concluded that the employees' intentions were genuine and the action was necessary to protect their working conditions. The Commission emphasised that the protection of employees' rights to organise and take protected industrial action is a fundamental principle of Australian industrial relations law. Therefore, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the ballot to proceed. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected industrial action with the need to maintain essential services and protect public health.

Health Services Union v Mildura Base Public Hospital

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established