Health Services Union v Northeast Health Wangaratta

[2022] FWC 434

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

Northeast Health Wangaratta

(B2022/129)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Northeast Health Wangaratta.

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 Northeast Health Wangaratta (Respondent).

On 25 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

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.

An order has been separately issued in PR738842.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (HSU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order allowing a protected action ballot of certain employees of Northeast Health Wangaratta (NEHW). The FWC was required to determine whether the HSU had met the criteria set out in section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to hold such a ballot. This involved considering whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and if a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been established.

The FWC examined the material before it, including the declaration of Mr Craig McGregor of the HSU. Mr McGregor's declaration outlined the steps the union had taken in bargaining with NEHW and confirmed that the HSU had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer. The FWC also had to consider whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The FWC was satisfied that the HSU had fulfilled the necessary criteria, as the employer did not object to the application.

The FWC concluded that the HSU had met the requirements for a protected action ballot and issued an order accordingly. The order was issued separately in PR738842. The Deputy President of the FWC, Clancy, presided over the matter in Melbourne on 28 February 2022. The decision was made on the papers without a hearing, as NEHW did not object to the application. The FWC found that the HSU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with NEHW and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been established.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established