Bayside Health [2026] FWC 1269 (16 April 2026)

s.251 - Application for a variation of a single interest employer authorisation

Application to vary single interest employer authorisation in B2025/1590 & B2025/1644

[1] The Commission has before it 3 related applications made under s.251 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act), which seek to vary 2 single interest employer authorisations made by the Commission under s.248 of the Act. The applications have all been brought on behalf of the relevant employers by the Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association (VHIA). The VHIA is authorised to make applications on behalf of the employers concerned.

[2] The two Authorisations are as follows:

• • Albury Wodonga Health and Others[1] issued on 4 November 2025, which included 77 employers - AWH Authorisation; and

• • Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association[2] issued on 1 December 2025, which included 73 employers - VHIA Authorisation.

[3] In each case, all of the employers are national system employers for the purposes of the Act who are principally engaged in the provision of public health services in Victoria.

[4] The combined effect of the applications is firstly to seek to remove the names of certain employers from each authorisation in circumstances where the employers concerned have been subject to an amalgamation and now operate under the auspices of Bayside Health. Secondly, the applications seek to confirm the coverage of what is now Bayside Health in both authorisations. Thirdly, one of the applications seek to also include Heathcote Health (for the first time) as an employer party to the VHIA Authorisation. I observe that Heathcote Health is already covered by the AWH Authorisation.

[5] More formally, the applications made under s.251 of the Act are as follows:

• • By Bayside Health (formerly Alfred Health, Bass Coast Health, Gippsland Southern Health Service, Kooweerup Regional Health Service and Peninsula Health Service and Peninsula Health) to remove Alfred Health, Bass Coast Health, Gippsland Southern Health Service and Kooweerup Regional Health Services from the AWH Authorisation[3] and in effect, rename Peninsula Health as Bayside Health.

• • By Bayside Health and Heathcote Health to add Bayside Health and Heathcote Health to the VHIA Authorisation[4].

• • By Alfred Health, Bass Coast Health, Gippsland Southern Health Service, Kooweerup Regional Health Service and Peninsula Health to remove themselves from the VHIA Authorisation[5].

[6] It is convenient to describe the circumstances of the applications as they apply to Bayside Health and its former entities. On 1 January 2026, the original employer entities merged into one single health service, Bayside Health. Bayside Health is the new name of the employer currently listed as 'Peninsula Health' under each authorisation. Peninsula Health changed its name to Bayside Health on 1 January 2026.

[7] The merger described above occurred following orders of Victoria's Governor-in-Council made pursuant to Part 13 of the Health Services Act 1988 (Vic) (HS Act). As a result of the merger, all staff, rights and obligations, have transferred to Bayside Health (previously Peninsula Health) and Bayside Health is the only employing entity of the relevant employees. Bayside Health (previously Peninsula Health) remains listed as a public health service under the HS Act.

[8] The applications to remove and add the "Bayside" employers are principally based on there being a relevant change in circumstances and to reflect the impact of the entity changes made under the HS Act. In many respects, these variations are designed to confirm what is likely to be the existing legal impact of the changes made under the HS Act.

[9] In relation to the application to add Heathcote Health to the VHIA Authorisation, the application contends, in effect, that it is a relevant public health service operating in Victoria and shares common interests and operating environments to those employers already covered. The material before the Commission confirms that basis.

[10] All applications are supported by the relevant organisations covered by the 2 Authorisations, and all existing employers and bargaining representatives have had the opportunity to provide their views to the Commission. None of the applications are opposed.

[11] I have decided to grant both applications and my reasons for doing so are briefly set out below.

[12] The applications to remove the employers relies upon ss.251(1), (2) and (2A) of the Act which provide as follows:

"251 Variation of single interest employer authorisations

(1) The following may apply to the FWC for a variation of a single interest employer authorisation to remove an employer's name from the authorisation:

(b) a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement to which the authorisation relates.

(2) The FWC must vary the authorisation to remove the employer's name if:

(a) an application has been made under subsection (1); and

(b) the requirements of either subsection (2A) or (2B) are met.

(2A) The requirements of this subsection are met if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) the employers specified in the authorisation and the bargaining representatives of the employees of those employers have had an opportunity to express to the FWC their views (if any) on the application; and

(b) because of a change in the employer's circumstances, it is no longer appropriate for the employer to be specified in the authorisation."

[13] In each case, I am satisfied that a valid application has been made, the existing employers and all relevant bargaining representatives have had an opportunity to express their views to the Commission, and I am satisfied that it is no longer appropriate to include reference to the employers concerned as a result of a change in circumstances.

[15] Sections 251(3), (4), and (8) and s.251(A) of the Act relevantly provide as follows:

(3) The following may apply to the FWC for a variation of a single interest employer authorisation to add the name of an employer (the new employer) that is not specified in the authorisation to the authorisation:

(i) for the proposed enterprise agreement to which the authorisation relates; and

(4) The FWC must vary the authorisation to add the new employer's name if:

(a) an application for the variation has been made; and

(i) the employers specified in the authorisation and the bargaining representatives of the employees of those employers have had an opportunity to express to the FWC their views (if any) on the application; and

(ii) if the application was made by the new employer under paragraph (3)(a) - no person coerced, or threatened to coerce, the new employer to make the application; and

(iii) if the application was made by a bargaining representative under paragraph (3)(b) - the requirements of subsection (5) are met; and

(iv) the requirements of subsection 249(2) or (3) (which deal with franchisees and common interest employers) would continue to be met if the new employer's name were added; and

(v) if the requirements of subsection 249(3) would continue to be met if the new employer's name were added - the operations and business activities of the new employer are reasonably comparable with those of the employers specified in the authorisation.

Employers and employees that are already bargaining

(8) Despite subsection (4), the FWC may refuse to vary the authorisation if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) the new employer is bargaining in good faith for a proposed enterprise agreement that will cover the new employer and the employees of the new employer that will be covered by the agreement, or substantially the same group of those employees; and

(b) the new employer and those employees have a history of effectively bargaining in relation to one or more enterprise agreements that have covered the new employer and those employees, or substantially the same group of those employees; and

(c) on the day that the FWC will vary the authorisation, less than 9 months have passed since the most recent nominal expiry date of an agreement referred to in paragraph (b).

251A Restriction on variation of single interest employer authorisation

Despite subsection 251(4), the FWC must not vary a single interest employer authorisation if, as a result of the variation, the proposed enterprise agreement to which the authorisation relates would cover employees in relation to general building and construction work."

[16] The change to name Bayside Health in each case is uncontroversial and reflects the exiting operation of the law. In any event, all of the requirements of s.251 as are relevant to the proposed variation of each Authorisation have been met.

[17] In relation to Heathcote Health, I am also satisfied that all of the relevant requirements have been met to add it as an employer to the VHIA Authorisation. This includes that Heathcote Health has not been coerced and that the (common interests and related) requirements of s.249(3) of the Act continue to be met.

[18] In each case, to the extent that the circumstances set out in s.251(8) of the Act may apply, it is not appropriate here to exercise any discretion to refuse the variations given the consent positions and the basis and timing of the applications.

• [19] Being satisfied that all of the requirements for making the variations sought to the Authorisations have been met, Orders[6] confirming the variations to the 2 Authorisations are being issued by the Commission in conjunction with this decision.

[1] PR793404.

[2] PR794326.

[6] PR798566 and PR798610.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer