Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc v Grampians Health T/A Grampians Health Ballarat

[2022] FWC 2632

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Dental Association Victoria Branch Inc
v

Grampians Health T/A Grampians Health Ballarat; Grampians Health Dimboola; Grampians Health Edenhope; Grampians Health Horsham; Grampians Health Stawell

(B2022/1478)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 29 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Grampians Health T/A Grampians Health Ballarat; Grampians Health Dimboola; Grampians Health Edenhope; Grampians Health Horsham; Grampians Health Stawell.

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 Grampians Health T/A Grampians Health Ballarat; Grampians Health Dimboola; Grampians Health Edenhope; Grampians Health Horsham; Grampians Health Stawell. (Respondent).

On 29 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 PR746349.

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 under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of Grampians Health T/A Grampians Health Ballarat and its subsidiaries (Respondent). The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, which convened on 29 September 2022 to determine the matter. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the decision being made on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant had provided a declaration from Mr Matthew Hopcraft, outlining the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The court needed to assess this material to determine if the Applicant had fulfilled the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot.

Upon reviewing the material, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the court determined that the application for a protected action ballot order should be granted. An order was separately issued in PR746349, formalising the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established