DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd
(B2021/40)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the United 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 Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 3 February 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 A Snowball 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 PR726643.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the United Workers' Union, who sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the union's request to hold the ballot and the employer's objections thereto. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues that the Commission had to determine included whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action, if the union had provided sufficient information to the employer, and whether the employer had valid grounds to object to the ballot. The primary focus was on whether the union's actions complied with the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, and whether the employer's objections were reasonable and justifiable.

The Commission found that the union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for a protected action ballot. It noted that the union had provided the employer with comprehensive information regarding the proposed ballot and the potential impact on operations. The Commission also determined that the employer's objections were not sufficiently substantiated to warrant a refusal of the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

The Commission issued orders permitting the union to conduct the protected action ballot among the employees of Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd. The employer was directed to facilitate the ballot by providing necessary access and information to the union. The decision emphasised the importance of adherence to statutory procedures and the balance between the rights of employees to organise and the operational needs of the employer.

United Workers' Union v Healthcare Supply Partners Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established