Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v

[2022] FWC 2646

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Seymour Health
(B2022/1487)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Seymour 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 Seymour 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 PR746399.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order. This was in relation to certain employees of Seymour Health (Respondent). The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing. The application sought to conduct a ballot of employees regarding potential protected action due to an inability to reach an agreement with the Respondent during bargaining.

The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission had to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were met. The Applicant argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had followed the necessary steps in bargaining. The Commission had to assess the validity of these claims based on the provided material, including the declaration by Mr. Matthew Hopcraft of the Applicant.

In making its decision, the Commission noted that the material provided by the Applicant, including the declaration of Mr. Matthew Hopcraft, demonstrated that the Applicant had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken the necessary steps in bargaining. Given that the Respondent did not object to the application, the Commission was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the application was successful, and an order was issued in PR746399.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order. This decision allowed the Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc to proceed with the ballot of its employees concerning the proposed agreement with Seymour Health. The order was issued in PR746399, formalising the Commission's decision and enabling the Applicant to conduct the ballot as per the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established