United Workers' Union v St John of God Health Care Summary

[2023] FWC 487

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers' Union
v

St John of God Health Care

(B2023/168)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 FEBRUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of St John of God Health Care Inc

This is an application by the United Workers' Union (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 St John of God Health Care (Respondent).

On 24 February 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Brant Softley of the Applicant declared on 23 February 2023, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR751226.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers' Union applied for an order permitting a ballot of certain employees of St John of God Health Care regarding protected action under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, St John of God Health Care, but had been unsuccessful. The employer did not oppose the application, leading the Vice President to determine the matter without a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot as stipulated in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been properly observed. The union had to demonstrate that it had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and that it had complied with all procedural requirements before a ballot could be held.

The Vice President found that the union had provided sufficient evidence through a statutory declaration by Brant Softley, setting out the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and confirming the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Vice President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, and all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Consequently, the application was granted, and an order was issued separately in PR751226.

United Workers' Union v St John of God Health Care

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established