STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009
s.160—Variation of modern award

United Voice; Health Services Union
(AM2013/30)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 15 OCTOBER 2015

Progress in conciliation.

[1] In December 2013 United Voice and the Health Services Union made an application to the Fair Work Commission to vary the Supported Employment Services Award in relation to the setting of wages for employees in supported employment. These employees are employed in Australian Disability Enterprises.

[2] In June 2014 a Full Bench of Commission referred the application to conciliation before me.

[3] The parties represented in the conciliation include the unions, the ACTU, National Disability Services (NDS), Australian Business Limited (ABL), disability advocacy representatives, Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) and representatives of parents and carers.

[4] These parties have attended conciliation, with the Department of Social Services observing, throughout 2014 and 2015.

[5] During conciliation and between sessions the parties have exchanged views and undertaken intensive research in an effort to reach agreement on matters before the Commission.

[6] The parties agree that their shared objectives are:

a) A fair, equitable and non-discriminatory wage outcome to contribute to a living income for employees in supported employment;

b) Continued opportunity for employment in supported employment settings to build and maintain the self-esteem and sense of purpose of employees;

c) Sustainable employment opportunities in viable ADEs; and

d) To provide security and confidence to employees, parents and carers for the future.

[7] The parties are developing options, including modelling, to endeavour to meet these objectives.

[8] Conciliation will continue.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Services Union, represented by United Voice, sought to challenge the dismissal of an employee by a private hospital, which was a member of the Australian Private Hospitals Association. The union argued that the dismissal was unfair and contrary to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Act. The union contended that the dismissal was without valid reason and was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The legal issues before the commission included whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal, and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The union argued that the dismissal process was flawed and that the hospital did not have just cause to terminate the employment. The hospital, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was procedurally sound and justified on the grounds of misconduct.

The commission found that while the dismissal process was not entirely without flaws, the overall process was fair, and the reasons for the dismissal were valid. The commission held that the employee's actions constituted misconduct, and the hospital's decision to terminate the employment was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, the union's claim was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Health Services Union pay the costs of the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of following fair and transparent procedures in the dismissal of employees and highlights the need for employers to have valid reasons for such actions.

United Voice; Health Services Union

STATEMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established