Health Services Union v St Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited

[2022] FWC 436

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

St Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited

(B2022/131)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of St Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited.

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 Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited (Respondent).

On 25 February 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 PR738847.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union, acting on behalf of certain employees, applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of St Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking permission to conduct a ballot of the employees to determine whether they wish to take protected action. St Vincents Hospital (Melbourne) Limited did not object to the application, allowing the matter to be decided on the papers without a hearing.

The key legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the Health Services Union had met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 for holding a protected action ballot. In particular, the Deputy President had to determine if there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and if the union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the employer. These issues were addressed based on the material presented, including a declaration by Mr Craig McGregor of the union outlining the bargaining process and the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the employer.

The Deputy President found that the union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order. The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and that the union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the employer. Therefore, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted. An order was separately issued in PR738847, authorising the union to conduct the ballot.

No further orders were made by the Deputy President. The decision focused solely on the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether those requirements had been met in this case. The Deputy President's decision allowed the union to proceed with the ballot to determine whether the employees wished to take protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established