Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v Echuca Regional Health Summary

[2022] FWC 2417

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

Echuca Regional Health

(B2022/1364)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Echuca Regional Health.

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 Echuca Regional Health (Respondent).

On 12 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 PR745720.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Echuca Regional Health (Respondent). The matter was decided on the papers without a hearing as the Respondent did not object to the application. The Applicant sought the order under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to hold a ballot on proposed protected action, which would require the Respondent to provide a notification period in accordance with the Act. The Respondent did not dispute the application, and the Applicant provided a declaration from Mr Matthew Hopcraft stating that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act had been met. This included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and whether the Applicant had genuinely been trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Commission was satisfied, on the basis of the material before it, that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission also accepted Mr Hopcraft's declaration that the Applicant had genuinely been trying to reach agreement with the Respondent.

The Fair Work Commission decided to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was based on the material before the Commission, including the declaration from Mr Hopcraft, which demonstrated that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Commission was satisfied that the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act had been met, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission issued an order in PR745720, allowing the Applicant to proceed with the ballot. The decision was made without the need for a hearing, as the Respondent did not object to the application.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v Echuca Regional Health

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established