DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch
v
Central Bayside Community Health Services Limited
(B2018/1181)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 DECEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Central Bayside Community Health Services Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Central Bayside Community Health Services Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 17 December 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr M Butler 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR703282.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch, on behalf of its members, brought proceedings against Central Bayside Community Health Services Limited, a provider of dental services, in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot by employees of the respondent, which the Association sought to have invalidated. The employees sought to ballot over issues including pay rates, allowances, and conditions of employment. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot notice was valid and whether the ballot itself complied with the Act. Specifically, the Association argued that the notice did not sufficiently specify the issues to be balloted, and therefore was invalid. The Commission had to consider the requirements of section 392 of the Act, which outlines the contents of a valid protected action ballot notice. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the proposed ballot related to a genuine dispute of workplace character.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot notice was invalid as it did not adequately specify the issues to be balloted, thus failing to meet the requirements of the Act. The Commission held that the notice was not specific enough to inform the employees about the precise nature of the proposed action. Consequently, the Commission determined that the ballot could not proceed as it was based on an invalid notice. The Commission also noted that while the issues raised by the employees were of a genuine workplace character, the invalidity of the ballot notice precluded the employees from proceeding with the ballot. The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be disallowed.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Central Bayside Community Health Services Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established