Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v Dental Health Services Victoria

[2022] FWC 2610

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

Dental Health Services Victoria

(B2022/1463)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Dental Health Services Victoria.

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 Dental Health Services Victoria (Respondent).

On 28 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 PR746284.

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 seeking a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Dental Health Services Victoria (Respondent). The dispute pertains to the proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Clancy presiding over the case on 28 September 2022. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading to the decision to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the requirements set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant must demonstrate that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that it has been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The declaration provided by Mr Matthew Hopcraft of the Applicant, along with other material before the court, played a crucial role in establishing the validity of the application.

Deputy President Clancy examined the evidence provided by the Applicant, including the declaration by Mr Matthew Hopcraft, and found that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. The Applicant had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the Respondent and had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with them. As a result, the Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, leading to the issuance of an order in PR746284.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established