DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union – Victoria No. 4 Branch
v
Peter McCallum Cancer Centre
(B2021/1148)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Peter McCallum Cancer Centre.

[1] This is an application by the Health Services Union – Victoria No. 4 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 Peter McCallum Cancer Centre (Respondent).

[2] On 23 November 2021, 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 Paul Elliot 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 PR736085.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch filed proceedings against the Peter McCallum Cancer Centre regarding a proposed ballot for protected industrial action by its employees. The union sought to conduct a vote among the employees to ascertain their support for potential protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian body responsible for resolving workplace disputes and ensuring fair work practices.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had adequately notified the employer about the proposed industrial action in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the union had provided the employer with sufficient information regarding the timing, scope, and purpose of the ballot. The union argued that it had given adequate notice, while the employer contended that the notification was insufficient and potentially prejudicial.

The Commission examined the statutory requirements for notice of industrial action and assessed the adequacy of the union's notification. The Commission concluded that the union's notification did not meet the statutory standards. The employer had not been provided with enough information to adequately prepare for the ballot, including the exact dates and the specific matters to be included in the ballot. As a result, the Commission ruled that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the legal requirements, and the employer was not obligated to facilitate the ballot. The union's application was dismissed.

Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch v Peter McCallum Cancer Centre

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established