Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v East Grampians Health Service Summary

[2022] FWC 2400

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

East Grampians Health Service

(B2022/1353)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of East Grampians Health Service.

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 East Grampians Health Service (Respondent).

On 9 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 PR745656.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v East Grampians Health Service was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on 9 September 2022. The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc, the Applicant, sought a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of the East Grampians Health Service, the Respondent. The application was made as the Applicant claimed that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had followed the necessary steps in bargaining.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the Applicant had fulfilled the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant needed to demonstrate that it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission also needed to consider if the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

Upon reviewing the material before it, including the declaration of Mr Matthew Hopcraft of the Applicant, the Commission was satisfied that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had followed the necessary steps in bargaining. Additionally, the Commission found 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. As the Respondent did not object to the application, Deputy President Clancy decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. An order was separately issued in PR745656.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v East Grampians Health Service

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established