Health Services Union v The Royal Women's Hospital

[2022] FWC 438

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union
v

The Royal Women’s Hospital

(B2022/133)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Royal Women’s Hospital.

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 Women’s Hospital (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 PR738854.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union (HSU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to hold a protected action ballot among employees of The Royal Women's Hospital (TRWH). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), seeking authorisation for the ballot in relation to certain employees of TRWH. The nature of the dispute centred around the proposed agreement between the HSU and TRWH, and the steps taken in the bargaining process. TRWH did not object to the application, leading to the determination of the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the FWC were whether a notification time for the proposed agreement existed and if the requirements in section 443(1) of the FW Act had been fulfilled. The FWC needed to assess if the HSU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with TRWH and if the notification period had elapsed. This evaluation was critical in determining whether the proposed protected action ballot could proceed.

The FWC Deputy President, Clancy, examined the material provided, including a declaration from Mr Craig McGregor of the HSU. The declaration outlined the steps taken by the HSU in bargaining with TRWH and confirmed the union's genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The FWC was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the FW Act had been met. Consequently, the FWC determined to grant the HSU's application for a protected action ballot order.

The FWC issued an order in PR738854, authorising the protected action ballot among the employees of TRWH as sought by the HSU. This decision allowed the HSU to proceed with the ballot, enabling the employees to express their views on the proposed agreement. The FWC's ruling was based on the evidence presented, confirming that the necessary conditions for a ballot had been satisfied.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established