Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Summary

[2022] FWC 2648

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Central Highlands Rural Health
(B2022/1489)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Central Highlands Rural Health.

This is an application by the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Central Highlands Rural Health (Respondent).

On 30 September 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR746407.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc (Applicant) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Central Highlands Rural Health (Respondent). The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Clancy presiding over the case in Melbourne on 3 October 2022. The Applicant sought to hold a ballot among the employees to gauge their support for protected industrial action. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the Deputy President deciding to determine the matter on the submitted papers without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the conditions for a protected action ballot were satisfied. This involved assessing whether the Applicant had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Respondent and if there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Deputy President also needed to determine if the application met the criteria for a protected action ballot, including the genuine attempt to reach an agreement and adherence to the notification period.

In evaluating the application, the Deputy President considered the declaration from Mr Matthew Hopcraft of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Additionally, the Deputy President noted that the Respondent did not object to the application, indicating no disputes over the facts. Given these circumstances, the Deputy President concluded that all requirements for a protected action ballot were met. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order in PR746407, permitting the ballot to proceed.

This decision underscores the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating fair industrial relations processes and ensuring that both parties engage in good-faith negotiations. The Deputy President's ruling allows the employees to express their views on the proposed agreement through a ballot, thereby empowering them in the decision-making process regarding potential industrial action.

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established