DECISION

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

Health Services Union
v
The Royal Children's Hospital
(B2020/493)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Royal Children's 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 The Royal Children's 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 PR722410.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Royal Children's Hospital took legal action against the Health Services Union, contesting a proposed protected action ballot among its employees. The dispute centred on the timing and content of the ballot, which the hospital argued was not in compliance with the relevant industrial legislation. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the hospital argued that the ballot did not provide sufficient notice and that the wording of the ballot did not clearly outline the nature of the proposed industrial action. The Union contended that the ballot was appropriately timed and accurately described the intended action.

The Commission found that the ballot did not adequately inform employees of the potential consequences of the proposed action, particularly in terms of patient safety and service disruption. The wording of the ballot was deemed insufficiently clear, which led to the conclusion that it did not meet the legislative requirements. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of the hospital, stating that the ballot was unlawful and could not proceed as proposed.

In light of the ruling, the Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be halted. The Commission further directed that the Union provide a revised ballot that complied with the legislative requirements, including clear and comprehensive information regarding the proposed action and its implications. This decision underscores the importance of precise and informative communication in protected action ballots within the healthcare sector.

Health Services Union v The Royal Children's Hospital

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established