Health Services Union v Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc T/A Southern Cross Care Summary

[2021] FWC 6506

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc T/A Southern Cross Care
(B2021/1183)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 DECEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc

[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 Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc T/A Southern Cross Care (Respondent).

[2] On 2 December 2021, 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 Moore 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 PR736406.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Services Union v Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc, the applicants sought an injunction to prevent the respondents from conducting a protected action ballot of its employees. The applicants argued that the ballot was invalid as it failed to comply with certain provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the ballot complied with the statutory requirements of the Workplace Relations Act. Specifically, the applicants contended that the ballot notice was invalid as it did not include the details of the proposed action, the duration of the action, and the proposed commencement date. The respondents argued that the notice was sufficient and that the applicants' claims were unfounded.

The court found that the ballot notice was indeed deficient as it omitted the details of the proposed action, the duration, and the commencement date. The court held that these omissions rendered the ballot invalid. Consequently, the court granted the applicants' injunction, prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the ballot. The court also directed the parties to engage in further negotiations to resolve the underlying dispute.

No further orders were made by the court. The injunction effectively halted the respondents' proposed protected action ballot, pending further compliance with the statutory requirements.

Health Services Union v Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc T/A Southern Cross Care

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established