Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc v South West Healthcare

[2022] FWC 2542

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc
v

South West Healthcare

(B2022/1434)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of South West Healthcare.

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 South West Healthcare. (Respondent).

On 21 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 Ms Meaghan Quinn 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 PR746099.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application from the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch Inc (Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of South West Healthcare (Respondent). The application, numbered B2022/1434, was made on 21 September 2022, before Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter on the submitted papers without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant had satisfied the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, as outlined in section 443(1) of the Act. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain if there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the Applicant had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Applicant's declaration, signed by Ms Meaghan Quinn, detailed the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and affirmed the Applicant's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The Deputy President reviewed the material presented, including the declaration, and concluded that the Applicant had fulfilled the necessary criteria. The declaration evidenced the Applicant's ongoing attempts to negotiate with the Respondent and confirmed that a notification period was in place. Consequently, the Deputy President found that the statutory requirements were met, and an order was issued separately in PR746099.

No additional paragraph is necessary as the final orders are implied to have been issued as part of the proceedings detailed in the case. The Deputy President's decision was based on the evidence provided and the absence of objections from the Respondent, leading to a straightforward determination on the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established