Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v Peninsula Health

[2022] FWC 2481

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

Peninsula Health

(B2022/1390)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Peninsula 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 Peninsula Health (Respondent).

On 15 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 PR745901.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc (Applicant) made an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Peninsula Health (Respondent). The Applicant sought the ballot order following its attempts to reach an agreement with the Respondent regarding certain terms and conditions of employment. The application was made on the basis that the Respondent did not object to the proposed ballot.

The legal issues before the FWC were whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The Applicant provided a declaration by Mr Matthew Hopcraft, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and affirmed that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the FWC to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The FWC was satisfied, based on the material before it, 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. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order in PR745901 allowing the protected action ballot to proceed. The decision was made on 15 September 2022 in Melbourne.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established