Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v

[2022] FWC 2649

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Boort District Health
(B2022/1490)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Boort District 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 Boort District 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 PR746409.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Boort District Health (Respondent). The Applicant sought to conduct a ballot of employees to authorise protected action, presumably related to industrial action. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading Deputy President Clancy to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing. The decision was based on the Applicant's declaration that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met.

The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant needed to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been fulfilled. The Deputy President considered the material before him, including the declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft of the Applicant, to determine whether these requirements had been satisfied.

Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Deputy President accepted the Applicant's declaration that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the Deputy President determined that the application for a protected action ballot order should be granted.

In summary, the Deputy President granted the application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Boort District Health. The decision was based on the material before him, including the Applicant's declaration that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Deputy President was satisfied that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. An order has been separately issued in PR746409.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established