DECISION

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

Health Services Union-Victoria No. 3 Branch
v
Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging
(B2020/46)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

MELBOURNE, 31 JANUARY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Radploy Pty Ltd.

[1] The Health Services Union-Victoria No. 3 Branch has applied for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging. Following discussion between the parties, Lake Imaging has advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly, the matter will be determined on the papers without holding a hearing.

[2] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Craig McGregor in relation to steps taken in bargaining for a single enterprise agreement between the parties, I am satisfied that:

1. there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement; and
2. the Union has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Lake Imaging; and
3. the various requirements in Subdivision B of Part 3-3 of the Act conditioning the power to make orders have been met in this case.

[3] The result is that a protected action ballot order must be made. Order PR716298 will issue separately and comes into effect today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Health Services Union-Victoria No. 3 Branch and Radploy Pty Ltd, trading as Lake Imaging. The dispute centred on a proposed industrial action ballot of Radploy's employees, with the Union seeking authorisation for a protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary due to unresolved issues in the workplace, while Radploy opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was premature and unnecessary.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the Union had complied with the procedural requirements for holding a protected action ballot, whether the proposed action was in relation to a 'workplace issue' as defined by the Act, and whether the proposed action was likely to achieve its intended purpose. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the proposed ballot would cause undue hardship to Radploy.

The Commission found that the Union had complied with the procedural requirements for holding a ballot, and that the proposed action related to a workplace issue. The Commission also determined that the proposed action was likely to achieve its intended purpose and would not cause undue hardship to Radploy. The Commission authorised the Union to hold a ballot among Radploy's employees for the proposed protected action, subject to certain conditions. These included ensuring that the ballot notice was provided to employees at least 14 days before the ballot, and that the ballot was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner.

The final orders of the Commission included the authorisation of the ballot, the imposition of conditions on the conduct of the ballot, and the requirement that the Union provide Radploy with a copy of the ballot results. The Commission also directed the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute through conciliation, and to provide a report to the Commission within a specified timeframe. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements for protected action ballots and the need for employers and unions to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve workplace disputes.

Health Services Union-Victoria No. 3 Branch v Radploy Pty Ltd T/A Lake Imaging

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established