DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch
v
Dental Health Services Victoria
(B2018/451)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Dental Health Services Victoria.

[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 Dental Health Services Victoria (Respondent).

[2] On 6 June 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 PR607893.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch contested a proposed ballot of employees of Dental Health Services Victoria, an entity established under the Health Services Act 1988 (Vic). The Association claimed that the proposed ballot was not in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Health Services (Industrial Relations) Award 2017. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information as required by the Health Services (Industrial Relations) Award 2017. The court also needed to determine if the ballot complied with the relevant sections of the Health Services Act 1988.

The court found that the proposed ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, as it did not provide the employees with adequate information to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. The court determined that the ballot notice failed to include certain critical information, such as the potential impact of the proposed action on the employees and the employer. Additionally, the court held that the ballot did not comply with the Health Services Act 1988 because it did not include the necessary details regarding the proposed action. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Association and declared the proposed ballot invalid. The court also made an order that the respondents bear the costs of the proceeding.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Dental Health Services Victoria

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established