Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Summary

[2022] FWC 2647

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Alfred Health
(B2022/1488)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Alfred 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 Alfred 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 PR746404.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) concerning certain employees of Alfred Health (Respondent). The matter was heard by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on October 3, 2022. The Applicant applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order, which was not objected to by the Respondent. Consequently, the matter was determined on the basis of the documents submitted, without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the court involved verifying whether the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act were met for the proposed protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the notification time for the proposed agreement was applicable and whether the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. This involved assessing the declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft, who attested to the Applicant's efforts in bargaining and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement.

Upon reviewing the declaration and other submitted documents, Deputy President Clancy concluded that the notification time for the proposed agreement was applicable and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were satisfied. The Applicant had indeed been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Consequently, the court granted the application for a protected action ballot order, separate from the order issued in PR746404.

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