DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch
v
Cohealth Limited
(B2018/539)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cohealth Limited.

[1] This is an application by 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 Cohealth Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 3 July 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Aleysia Leonard 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 PR608742.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch challenged the validity of a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Cohealth Limited. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President R M Ryan. The Association argued that the proposed ballot was unlawful as it did not comply with specific requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the ballot notice provided by Cohealth Limited was adequate and whether the employees had a protected industrial action right. The Association contended that the ballot notice did not include a sufficient description of the employees who would be covered by the industrial action, and therefore, it was invalid. Cohealth Limited defended its position by asserting that the ballot notice was compliant with the necessary provisions and that the employees had a valid right to engage in protected industrial action.

The court found in favour of Cohealth Limited. Deputy President Ryan concluded that the ballot notice was compliant with the legislative requirements and adequately described the employees who would be covered by the proposed industrial action. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and specific information in the ballot notice to ensure that employees understand the scope and potential impact of the industrial action. The Association's challenge was dismissed, and the proposed ballot was deemed valid.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision allows Cohealth Limited's employees to proceed with the proposed industrial action ballot, provided they continue to adhere to the relevant legislative requirements.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Cohealth Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established