| [2021] FWC 993 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
v
Queensland Fertility Group Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Fertility Group; IVF Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd T/A The Fertility Centre
(B2021/96)
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 23 FEBRUARY 2021 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Fertility Group Pty Ltd, IVF Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Queensland Fertility Group Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Fertility Group and IVF Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd T/A The Fertility Centre (Respondents).
[2] On 19 February 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Annalese Jack of the Applicant declared on 19 February 2021, 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 PR727240.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR727241>
- AGLC
- The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Queensland Fertility Group Pty Ltd T/A Queensland Fertility Group [2021] FWC 993
- Case
- [2021] FWC 993
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the case revolved around the procedures and requirements for conducting a lawful protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the ballot process complied with the provisions of section 390 of the Act, which outlines the process for conducting a lawful protected action ballot. The central point of contention was whether the ballot materials provided to the employees adequately informed them of their rights and obligations under the Act, and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that ensured the integrity of the voting process.
The Commission examined the ballot materials and the process used by the employer. It concluded that the ballot was not conducted in accordance with the legislative requirements. The materials provided to the employees did not sufficiently inform them of their rights and obligations, and the process did not ensure the integrity of the voting process. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot was unlawful. The Commission further determined that the Association had a valid interest in the proceedings and was entitled to seek the remedy it requested.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the ballot be disregarded and directed the employer to take steps to ensure compliance with the Act in any future ballot processes. Additionally, the employer was required to pay the costs of the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when conducting protected action ballots to ensure that employees are fully informed and that the process is fair and transparent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.