DECISION

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

Health Services Union
v
Peninsula Health
(B2020/492)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Peninsula Health.

[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 Peninsula Health (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 PR722408.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Peninsula Health, a public health service provider in Victoria. Peninsula Health contested the ballot on the grounds that it was not protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was called upon to decide the matter. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action, specifically whether the action was in relation to a "workplace matter" as defined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to examine the nature and scope of the proposed ballot and whether it aligned with the statutory definition of protected action. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was indeed protected action. It determined that the ballot related to a workplace matter because it concerned the employees' terms and conditions of employment, specifically their pay rates and conditions. The Commission held that the ballot was protected action as it was an industrial action in pursuit of a workplace matter. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of the Health Services Union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that employees' rights to engage in protected action are upheld, provided the action pertains to a legitimate workplace matter.

Health Services Union v Peninsula Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established