Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Summary

[2022] FWC 2651

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Orbost Regional Health
(B2022/1491)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Orbost Regional 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 Orbost Regional 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 PR746413.

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, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Orbost Regional Health (Respondent). The application, B2022/1491, was heard by Deputy President Clancy on 30 September 2022. The Respondent did not object to the application, allowing the matter to be decided on the submitted documents without a hearing.

The central legal issue was whether the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied, specifically if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Applicant, through a declaration by Mr Matthew Hopcraft, detailed the bargaining process with the Respondent and affirmed their genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

Deputy President Clancy reviewed the submitted materials, including the declaration by Mr Hopcraft, and found that the notification time for the proposed agreement existed and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the court granted the application, and a separate order was issued in PR746413.

This decision underscores the importance of the notification time and genuine bargaining efforts in protected action ballot applications. The court's ruling highlights the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act and the necessity for parties to demonstrate their commitment to reaching an agreement before proceeding with a ballot.

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