ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – protected action ballot – s.437 Fair Work Act 2009 – two applications for protected action ballot order (PABO) by ANMF and HSU (the Applicants) in relation to negotiations with HammondCare for an enterprise agreement – respondent objected to form of questions proposed by the Applicants and further sought longer notice period due to exceptional circumstances should PABO be made – respondent argued questions to be put to employees involved composite yes/no regarding various forms of industrial action rather than option of a yes or no response to each form of industrial action – Commission of view question in current form was clear and concise and was not ambiguous – Commission followed approach taken in John Holland in determining approach taken by Applicants did not render applications invalid – regarding respondent request for a longer notice period, the Applicants argued respondent failed to provide any evidence suggesting statutory norm was inadequate for purpose of making reasonable contingency plans – respondent relied on risk to residents and staff if replacement staff were not properly trained in the HammondCare model – Commission not persuaded circumstances relied upon by respondent justified an extension of the period of notice in all the circumstances of this case – respondent’s objections rejected and protected action ballot orders made. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and Anor v HammondCare
