DECISION

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

Health Services Union
v
Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mildura Base Hospital
(B2020/489)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mildura Base 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 Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mildura Base Hospital (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 PR722400.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Mildura Base Hospital, was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Federal Court heard the case, with the primary issue being whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action and, if so, whether the union's conduct was consistent with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included whether the proposed industrial action ballot was genuinely intended for the purpose of advancing or defending an industrial claim or industrial dispute, and whether the union's actions were consistent with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the union's conduct in organising the ballot was in good faith and whether the proposed action met the criteria for protected action.

The court found that the proposed ballot constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. The union's intention to conduct the ballot was genuine and related to an industrial dispute, meeting the criteria for protected action. The court also found that the union's conduct in organising the ballot was in good faith and complied with the procedural requirements of the Act. The court thus ruled that the proposed ballot was protected action and that the union had acted appropriately in organising it. As a result, the union was granted the declaration it sought, confirming that the proposed ballot was protected action.

Health Services Union v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mildura Base Hospital

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established