DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v
Star Health Group Limited T/A Star Health
(B2018/148)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 MARCH 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Star Health Group Limited.

[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 Star Health Group Limited T/A Star Health (Respondent).

[2] On 7 March 2018, my associate was advised that the parties had come to an agreement regarding the contents of the ballot, and in that respect the Respondent is no longer objecting to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr C 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR601008.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Health Services Union sought an order against Star Health Group Limited to prevent the proposed protected action ballot of employees. The dispute centred on the timing and content of the ballot notice, with the Union arguing that it did not comply with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union contended that the ballot notice did not provide sufficient information for employees to make an informed decision and that the ballot was scheduled too close to the intended action, contravening the Act.

The court had to determine whether the ballot notice complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, it considered whether the notice provided enough information for employees to make an informed decision and if the timing of the ballot was reasonable. The court examined the content of the notice and its compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Act, including the necessity for the notice to contain sufficient information and the reasonableness of the timing of the ballot in relation to the intended action.

The court found that the ballot notice did not provide the employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision, and the timing of the ballot was unreasonable. The notice did not detail the specific changes to employees' terms and conditions that were the subject of the proposed action, which the court deemed necessary for employees to understand the potential impact of the action. Additionally, the court held that the ballot was scheduled too close to the intended action, which did not allow adequate time for employees to consider the information and make a decision. Therefore, the court granted the Union's application and issued an order prohibiting the ballot.

The Federal Court ordered that Star Health Group Limited was prohibited from proceeding with the proposed ballot of its employees. The court emphasised the importance of providing employees with comprehensive and timely information to ensure they could make informed decisions about protected actions. This decision underscores the necessity for employers to comply with statutory requirements when organising ballots for protected industrial action.

Health Services Union v Star Health Group Limited T/A Star Health

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established