Health Services Union v Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging

[2022] FWC 448

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging

(B2022/144)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging.

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 Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging (Respondent).

On 1 March 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 PR738891.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (HSU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Radploy Pty Ltd, trading as Lake Imaging. The application pertains to a dispute regarding the terms of employment for these employees. The matter was heard by Deputy President Clancy at the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 1 March 2022. Notably, Radploy Pty Ltd did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter based on the submitted documentation without the need for a hearing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot were met under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to ascertain if the notification period for the proposed agreement was met and if the HSU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Radploy Pty Ltd. The HSU submitted a declaration by Mr. Craig McGregor, outlining the steps taken during the bargaining process and affirming their genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the employer. The court's task was to evaluate this evidence to determine if the conditions for a protected action ballot were satisfied.

Upon reviewing the material presented, including the declaration by Mr. McGregor and the evidence of genuine bargaining efforts, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement was fulfilled and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the court granted the HSU's application for a protected action ballot order. An order was subsequently issued in PR738891, formalising the court's decision.

No additional orders were made beyond the granting of the protected action ballot order. The court's decision was based solely on the material provided and the lack of objection from Radploy Pty Ltd.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established