DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd T/A Ramsay Health Care
(B2019/1165)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ramsay Health Care Pty. Ltd. T/A Ramsay Health Care.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd T/A Ramsay Health Care (Respondent).

[2] On 10 October 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does 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 Benjamin Fullarton 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 PR713223.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) contested a decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against holding a protected action ballot of employees of Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd T/A Ramsay Health Care. The Union appealed the FWC's decision, which dismissed their application to hold a protected action ballot for the employees. The Fair Work Commission Act 2009 provided the legal framework for the appeal, with the primary issue being whether the FWC had the authority to dismiss the Union's application. The Federal Court of Australia heard the appeal and examined the scope of the FWC's powers under the Act.

The court evaluated whether the FWC correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the Union's application. The key issue was whether the FWC had considered all relevant factors and exercised its discretion lawfully. The Union argued that the FWC had failed to properly consider the impact of the proposed industrial action on the employees and the public. The court examined the FWC's decision-making process and the factors that the FWC had considered in dismissing the application. The court found that the FWC had considered all relevant factors and exercised its discretion lawfully. The Union's argument that the FWC had failed to consider the impact of the proposed industrial action on the employees and the public was rejected.

The court held that the FWC had the authority to dismiss the Union's application and that the FWC had exercised its discretion lawfully. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the FWC was upheld. The court found that the FWC had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion lawfully in dismissing the Union's application. The court rejected the Union's argument that the FWC had failed to consider the impact of the proposed industrial action on the employees and the public. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the FWC was upheld. The court's decision reinforced the FWC's power to dismiss applications for protected action ballots and the importance of considering all relevant factors in exercising that power.

The Australian Workers' Union v Ramsay Health Care Pty Ltd T/A Ramsay Health Care

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established