Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Nillumbik Community Health Service Ltd T/A Carrington Health and Healthability Summary

[2018] FWC 4261

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch

Nillumbik Community Health Service Ltd T/A Carrington Health and Healthability

(B2018/610)

Vice President Catanzariti

SYDNEY, 18 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carrington Health and Healthability.

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 Nillumbik Community Health Service Ltd T/A Carrington Health and Healthability (Respondent).

On 17 July 2018, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose 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 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR609130.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch sought to have a proposed protected action ballot by the employees of Nillumbik Community Health Service Limited, trading as Carrington Health and Healthability, declared unprotected. The employees, represented by the Association, intended to take protected action in the form of strike action and a work stoppage in relation to the terms and conditions of their employment. The Commission found that the ballot was not protected because the employer had not provided the employees with the information required by section 333(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. This information included details of the dispute, the nature and duration of the proposed action, and the period during which the action was intended to take place.

The legal issues the Commission had to decide were whether the employer had complied with its obligations to provide information to the employees and whether the ballot notice had been validly given. The Commission found that the employer had not provided the employees with the information required by section 333(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the employer had not provided the employees with a document setting out the nature of the dispute, the nature and duration of the proposed action, and the period during which the action was intended to take place. The Commission found that the employer had not provided the employees with the information required by section 333(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the employer had not provided the employees with a document setting out the nature of the dispute, the nature and duration of the proposed action, and the period during which the action was intended to take place.

The Commission found that the employer had failed to provide the employees with the information required by section 333(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the ballot notice was invalid, and the proposed protected action was unprotected. The Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot be declared unprotected, and that the employer provide the employees with the information required by section 333(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also ordered that the employer and the employees negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Nillumbik Community Health Service Ltd T/A Carrington Health and Healthability

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established