Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v Bendigo Health Care Group

[2022] FWC 2510

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

Bendigo Health Care Group

(B2022/1410)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 19 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bendigo Health T/A Bendigo Health Care Group.

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 Bendigo Health T/A Bendigo Health Care Group. (Respondent).

On 19 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 PR746006.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc (Applicant) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Bendigo Health T/A Bendigo Health Care Group (Respondent). The matter was brought before Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission. Bendigo Health Care Group did not oppose the application, leading to the decision being made on the presented documentation without a hearing.

The legal issues at hand involved whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met and if the requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The Applicant's declaration by Mr. Matthew Hopcraft stated that they had engaged in good-faith bargaining with the Respondent and had been making genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

Upon reviewing the evidence, Deputy President Clancy determined that the notification period had indeed been met and that the Act's requirements were fulfilled. Consequently, an order was issued in PR746006. This decision allowed the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot as planned.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established