Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc T/A Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (Adavb) v NorthEast Health Wangaratta

[2022] FWC 2436

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc T/A Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (ADAVB)
v

NorthEast Health Wangaratta

(B2022/1370)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of NorthEast Health Wangaratta

This is an application by the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc T/A Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of NorthEast Health Wangaratta (Respondent).

On 13 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 PR745775.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc T/A Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (ADAVB) sought an order for a protected action ballot of employees of NorthEast Health Wangaratta. The application was made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The ADAVB argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and that the requirements for a ballot under the Act were met. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue was whether the ADAVB had satisfied the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and if the ADAVB had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The court had to consider the declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft of the ADAVB, which set out the steps taken by the ADAVB in bargaining with the Respondent, and whether the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met.

The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met. The court considered the declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft, which set out the steps taken by the ADAVB in bargaining with the Respondent, and found that the ADAVB had genuinely tried to reach an agreement. The Deputy President decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing, as the Respondent did not object to the application.

An order has been separately issued in PR745775, allowing the ADAVB to proceed with the protected action ballot of the employees of NorthEast Health Wangaratta. The court's decision ensures that the ADAVB can take the necessary steps to protect the interests of its members in the bargaining process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established