DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union Victoria No. 1 Branch
v
Mildura District Hospital Fund Ltd T/A Mildura Private Hospital
(B2018/470)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mildura Private Hospital.

[1] This is an application by Health Services Union Victoria No. 1 Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mildura District Hospital Fund Ltd T/A Mildura Private Hospital (Respondent).

[2] On 13 June 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose 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 S Crawford 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 PR608126.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Health Services Union Victoria No. 1 Branch, acting on behalf of employees of Mildura Private Hospital, and Mildura District Hospital Fund Ltd, trading as Mildura Private Hospital. The dispute centred on a proposed ballot of the hospital's employees concerning protected action, which the hospital opposed on the grounds that it was not in the best interests of the hospital and its patients. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian statutory body responsible for the resolution of employment disputes.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot for protected action by the union was permissible under the Fair Work Act 2009. The hospital argued that the ballot would disrupt the hospital's operations and potentially harm patient care, while the union contended that the ballot was a necessary step in the process of industrial action to address workplace issues. The Commission had to balance the rights of employees to take protected action with the potential impact on the hospital's operations and patient care.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was necessary for the union to facilitate the process of industrial action, and that the hospital had not demonstrated that the potential disruption to its operations would be so severe as to warrant prohibiting the ballot. The Commission held that the employees' right to organise and take protected action outweighed the hospital's concerns about operational disruption. As a result, the Commission allowed the proposed ballot to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot of employees of Mildura Private Hospital regarding protected action be permitted to proceed, subject to the union providing the hospital with the requisite notice and information as required by the Fair Work Act. The hospital was also directed to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in a manner that minimised any potential impact on hospital operations and patient care.

Health Services Union Victoria No. 1 Branch v Mildura District Hospital Fund Ltd T/A Mildura Private Hospital

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established