DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch
v
Ranges Community Health T/A Inspiro
(B2018/595)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inspiro.

[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 Ranges Community Health T/A Inspiro (Respondent).

[2] On 17 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 matter 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 PR609119.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Ranges Community Health T/A Inspiro, the dispute revolved around the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inspiro, an entity that operates a dental service in Victoria. The Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch sought an injunction to prevent Inspiro from proceeding with the ballot. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner S. R. McInerney.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the proposed protected action constituted a protected action as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the Association had standing to seek an injunction to prevent the ballot. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Association had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Commissioner McInerney found that the proposed protected action did constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act. However, the court determined that the Association did not have standing to seek an injunction as it had not demonstrated a sufficient connection to the employees involved or to the subject matter of the dispute. The court held that the Association had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, as the employees' decision to proceed with the ballot was a matter for them to determine. Consequently, the Association's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the Association was not granted the injunction it sought, and Inspiro was permitted to proceed with the proposed protected action ballot. The court's reasoning centred on the lack of standing and insufficient connection demonstrated by the Association, which undermined its entitlement to seek relief in this matter.

Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch v Ranges Community Health T/A Inspiro

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established