Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Albury Wodonga Health Summary

[2022] FWC 2584

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Albury Wodonga Health

(B2022/1452)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Albury Wodonga 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 Albury Wodonga Health (Respondent).

On 27 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 PR746219.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc (ADAVB) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Albury Wodonga Health. The application was made in the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Clancy presiding over the matter. The Respondent, Albury Wodonga Health, did not object to the application, leading to the decision being made on the papers without a formal hearing. The primary concern in this case was whether the ADAVB had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Albury Wodonga Health and if the necessary notification time had been provided, in accordance with section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.

The court was required to determine whether the ADAVB had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Albury Wodonga Health, as mandated by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to decide if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been appropriately provided. The ADAVB submitted a declaration by Mr Matthew Hopcraft, which outlined the steps taken during bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed the union's genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The court considered this information, along with other relevant material, to make its decision.

After reviewing the submitted material, including Mr Hopcraft's declaration, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the ADAVB had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Albury Wodonga Health and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been fulfilled, and an order was issued in PR746219. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the satisfaction of the court that the union had taken appropriate steps in its negotiations with the Respondent.

No further orders were made by the court, as the primary objective of the application was achieved with the issuance of the order in PR746219. This decision confirmed that the Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Albury Wodonga Health and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, in accordance with the Fair Work Act.

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Albury Wodonga Health

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established