Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association

Case [2022] FWC 2777


[2022] FWC 2777

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.251—Single interest employer authorisation

Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association

(B2022/1551)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 17 OCTOBER 2022

Application to vary single interest employer authorisation in B2020/376.

  1. On 6 May 2022, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a single interest employer authorisation (the Authorisation)[1] pursuant to s.249 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Authorisation was made to cover some 72 employers in relation to the bargaining process for a proposed enterprise agreement. The Authorisation was made in relation to the Victorian Public Health Sector (Medical Scientists, Pharmacists and Psychologists) Single Interest Enterprise Agreement 2017-2021 (the Agreement). Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association (VHIA) is an employer association registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and has been appointed as the bargaining representative for the employers with the authority to make an application to the Commission for an Authorisation.

  1. On 12 October 2022, an application was made pursuant to s.251 of the Act for a variation of the Authorisation.

  1. Specifically, the application seeks to remove the following employers’ names because of a change in their circumstances, and for the following to be added instead:

Remove name as per Authorisation Add Name to the Authorisation
Ballarat Health Services Grampians Health
Castlemaine Health Dhelkaya Health
Heywood & District Memorial Hospital Heywood Rural Health
Kilmore & District Hospital Kilmore District Health
  1. The application also seeks the removal of the following employer names because of a change in their circumstances:

·   Maldon Hospital;

·   Stawell Regional Health; and

·   Wimmera Health Care Group.

  1. Section 251 of the Act provide as follows:

251      Variation of single interest employer authorisations

Variation to remove employer

(1)       An employer specified in a single interest employer authorisation in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to the FWC for a variation of the authorisation to remove the employer's name from the authorisation.

(2)       If an application is made under subsection (1), the FWC must vary the authorisation to remove the employer's name if the FWC is satisfied that, because of a change in the employer’s circumstances, it is no longer appropriate for the employer to be specified in the authorisation.

Variation to add employer

(3)  An employer that is not specified in a single interest employer authorisation may apply to the FWC for a variation of the authorisation to add the employer’s name to the authorisation.

(4)  If an application is made under subsection (3), the FWC must vary the authorisation to add the employer's name if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a)  each employer specified in the authorisation has agreed to the employer's name being added; and

(b)  no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, the employer to make the application; and

(c)  the requirements of subsection 249(2) or (3) (which deal with franchisees and employers that may bargain together for a proposed enterprise agreement) are met.”

  1. Firstly, because of the change in the circumstances of the following employers which I outline below, I am satisfied that it is no longer appropriate for them to be specified in the Authorisation and therefore, pursuant to s.251(2) of the Act, I must vary the Authorisation to remove these names:

a)Ballarat Health Services, on that basis that its name has changed to Grampians Health following a merger with Stawell Regional Health and Wimmera Health Care Group;

b)Castlemaine Health, on that basis that its name has changed to Dhelkaya Health following a merger with Maldon Hospital;

c)Heywood & District Memorial Hospital, on that basis that its name has changed to Heywood Rural Health;

d)Kilmore & District Hospital, on that basis that its name has changed to Kilmore District Health;

e)Maldon Hospital, on the basis that it is no longer a legal entity, having merged with Dhelkaya Health;

f)Stawell Regional Health, on the basis that it is no longer a legal entity, having merged with Grampians Health; and

g)Wimmera Health Care Group, on the basis that it is no longer a legal entity, having merged with Grampians Health.

  1. Secondly, I am satisfied that each of Grampians Health, Dhelkaya Health, Heywood Rural Health and Kilmore District Health has agreed to their name being added to the Authorisation and that no person has coerced, or threatened to coerce, any of them to make this application. As such, s.251(4) of the Act requires me to vary the Authorisation and add the names:

·   Grampians Health;

·   Dhelkaya Health;

·   Heywood Rural Health; and

·   Kilmore District Health.

  1. An Order varying the Authorisation will be issued in accordance with this Decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] PR741175.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746884>

Details
AGLC
Victorian Hospitals’ Industrial Association [2022] FWC 2777
Case
[2022] FWC 2777
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association brought an application before the Fair Work Commission to vary the authorisation of a single interest employer. The application was related to an existing authorisation that permitted a group of employers to act collectively in bargaining for their employees. The dispute centred on the terms and scope of the authorisation, with the association seeking amendments to better reflect the current industrial landscape and address certain issues that had arisen since the authorisation was first granted. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving workplace disputes and promoting cooperative relationships between employers and employees in Australia.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and modification of the authorisation's provisions. Specifically, the association argued that changes in the composition of the employer group and the evolving nature of their industrial activities warranted adjustments to the authorisation. The Commission was required to consider whether the proposed changes were consistent with the legislative framework governing single interest employer authorisations and whether they would promote the objectives of the Fair Work Act. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the balancing of the interests of the employers, employees, and the broader community.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission carefully examined the application and the evidence presented by the parties. The Commission noted the changes in the employer group's composition and the new challenges that had arisen in the industrial context. It concluded that the proposed amendments to the authorisation were necessary to ensure that it remained fit for purpose and continued to facilitate effective bargaining. The Commission found that the changes were consistent with the objectives of the Fair Work Act and would not undermine the rights of employees or the broader community. Accordingly, the Commission varied the authorisation in the manner requested by the association, reflecting the current industrial realities and promoting cooperative industrial relations.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission included the variation of the single interest employer authorisation to reflect the updated composition of the employer group and the new industrial challenges. The Commission's decision provided clarity on the interpretation and modification of authorisations, reinforcing the importance of adapting to changes in the industrial landscape. The outcome of the case underscores the Commission's role in facilitating effective bargaining and promoting cooperative relationships between employers and employees in the Australian workplace.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.