DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Health Services Union – Victoria No. 4 Branch
v
The Royal Women’s Hospital
(B2021/1150)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 NOVEMBER 2021

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

[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 The Royal Women’s Hospital (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 PR736089.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch initiated proceedings against The Royal Women’s Hospital over a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The dispute centred on the legality and procedural fairness of the hospital's decision to prevent the union from conducting the ballot. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether the hospital's actions constituted an unfair labour practice and whether the union's right to conduct a ballot under the Fair Work Act was unlawfully impeded. The Commission needed to determine if the hospital's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, as well as whether it had a legitimate basis in protecting the interests of patients and staff during a sensitive period.

The Commission found that the hospital's actions were reasonable and procedurally fair, given the potential impact on patient care and the need to maintain operational stability. It concluded that the hospital had a legitimate interest in preventing the ballot during a time of heightened vulnerability, and that the union's right to organise was not unjustly curtailed. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected action with the need to safeguard patient welfare and maintain hospital operations. The Commission dismissed the union's application, affirming the hospital's decision.

Health Services Union Victoria No. 4 Branch v The Royal Women'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