DECISION

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

Health Services Union
v
St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Limited T/A St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne
(B2020/495)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Limited T/A St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne.

[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 St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Limited T/A St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (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 PR722416.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union, representing employees of St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Limited T/A St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, sought approval to conduct a ballot of its members to consider protected industrial action. The hospital opposed the ballot on the grounds that the union had failed to provide sufficient information about the proposed action and the reasons for it, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner J P Carroll.

The primary legal issue was whether the union had provided adequate information to the employer to enable the employer to prepare a response to the proposed industrial action. The union argued that the information provided was sufficient, while the hospital contended that more detailed information was necessary. The court needed to determine the appropriate standard for sufficiency in the context of the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

Commissioner Carroll held that the union had not provided sufficient information about the proposed action and the reasons for it. The Commissioner found that the union had not explained the nature of the proposed action or the reasons for it with the necessary clarity and detail. The union's information was insufficient to enable the hospital to prepare an informed response to the proposed action. The Commissioner also noted that the union's information did not include details of the specific changes to terms and conditions of employment that the union intended to pursue through the proposed action. The application for approval of the ballot was dismissed.

The Commissioner did not make any orders as the application for approval of the ballot was dismissed.

Health Services Union v St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Limited T/A St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established