Health Services Union of NSW v Health Secretary o/b NSW Ambulance [2025] NSWIRComm 1090

"2 This dispute concerns the withdrawal or non-backfilling of Station Officer (SO) positions at multiple NSW Ambulance stations as part of the implementation of the Station Manager (SM) role.

3 The HSU does not dispute the introduction of Station Managers. Rather, the dispute centres on the reduction in SO staffing, which has occurred without agreement and has altered long-standing operational support structures at station level.

4 At numerous stations, it had previously been identified that the complexity and demand of operations required the presence of one SO per rostered module. This model was agreed to and implemented to ensure that every crew had access to immediate on-road supervision, real-time decision-making, and safety oversight - particularly during high-pressure periods such as night shifts. This established staffing arrangement has been an integral part of station operations.

5 While SMs serve an administrative and strategic function, SOs perform a distinct role as the first line of leadership embedded in day-to-day operations. The removal of these roles has created a gap in real-time operational management that cannot be substituted by the SM structure.

6 After members reported the withdrawal of these roles, the Union invoked the status quo provision on 13 June 2024, formally requesting reinstatement of withdrawn SO positions pending resolution."

1. It will be necessary to say more about the background to this dispute below, but in short, the HSU contends the Respondent, in the context of a prolonged exercise to implement a significant reform package known as the Strategic Workforce and Infrastructure Team (SWIFT) Paramedic Workforce Enhancements program, is altering a long-standing work practice in connection with the organisation of paramedics based in ambulance stations, the practical effect of which (it says) is to reduce the level of frontline supervision available to paramedics across a roster pattern.
2. The matter was listed for Conciliation before me on a number of occasions between 10 July and 5 August 2025. On 5 August 2025 I issued a Certificate of Attempted Conciliation, having satisfied myself that all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter by conciliation had been exhausted. At that time the Notifier sought the Commission list the matter for a limited arbitration on the operation of the "status quo" in cl 47(g) of the dispute resolution clause within the NSW Ambulance Paramedics (State) Award 2023 (the Award).
3. For reasons expressed at the time (in particular, the HSU's indication that resolution of the narrow status quo issue may well facilitate the resolution of the dispute by further conciliation) I was satisfied, despite some hesitation, that to list the status quo issue for separate determination would facilitate the just quick and cheap resolution of the dispute.
4. At the hearing the HSU relied upon an outline of written submissions filed 2 September 2025 (the NSUB), an outline of written submissions in reply dated 7 October 2025 (the NSUBR), a number of documents[2] and the evidence of:

(1) Ms Tess Oxley (who provided a Statement in chief and in reply), a paramedic employed by the Respondent since April 2010, who has been involved in "many different consultations made by NSWA throughout the years, including the implementation of the SWIFT program, the Frontline Leadership Model (FLM) Program and, later, the reintroduction of Station Managers" on behalf of the HSU[3].

(2) Mr Michael Grayson, a paramedic employed by the Respondent for some 37 years and delegate of the HSU, who described having been involved in a number of change processes with the Respondent (as a union delegate), including the "the Rural Roster Dispute, SWEP, SWIFT and Regional 500 programs". In that context Mr Grayson said he had "extensive experience in rosters within NSW Ambulance"[4]; and

(3) Mr Dain Willougby, a paramedic employed by the Respondent for approximately 19 years, who gave evidence of his experience of the SWIFT roll out in the Coffs Harbour and Mid North Coast Zone of the Northern Sector of the Respondent[5].

1. Each of Ms Oxley, Mr Grayson and Mr Willoughby in the course of their evidence confirmed they had reviewed the evidence Mr Willis and Mr Hughes. Only Ms Oxley provided a reply statement in accordance with the Commission's directions. That reply statement did not respond to anything in Mr Willis' statement, and responded to only a few matters in Mr Hughes' statement. There is, in substance, very little factual dispute.
2. The Respondent relied upon an outline of written submissions dated 30 September 2025 (the RSUB), and evidence of:

(1) Mr Daniel Willis, a paramedic employed by the Respondent since 2006, who has worked in a number of positions across the paramedic workforce. He is substantively appointed as an SO, but since March 2023 has been employed as the Senior Manager Workforce Program Implementation. In that position he is "a senior operational leader supporting the delivery of workforce enhancement and initiatives, including the SWIFT enhancements"[6]. He gave evidence primarily directed to the introduction of temporary SOs as part of the SWIFT enhancements, and the subsequent reintroduction of SMs.

(2) Mr Damian Hughes[7], a paramedic employed with the Respondent since June 1997. He has held various positions over the course of his long employment, and since March 2022 has been the Associate Director of the Respondent's North Coast Sector. Mr Hughes primarily gave evidence relating to the roll-out of the SM positions in August 2024.

1. All the witnesses were required for cross-examination. I have reviewed and had regard to all that evidence, but not all of it will be referred to in these reasons.
2. The parties also filed a document entitled Statement of Agreed Facts and Disputed Facts and Issues. Despite the rather extensive list of facts said to be in Dispute, as noted, there was in reality very little dispute in the evidence.

1. In or around early 2022[8], the government announced the SWIFT Paramedic Workforce Enhancements program. Mr Willis, who has been working as the Senior Manager Workforce Program Implementation since March 2023, described SWIFT in this way (at [10] - [12]):

"The Strategic Workforce Infrastructure Team (SWIFT) Program is a multi-year program involving the investment of approximately $1.76 billion into NSW Ambulance including the recruitment and onboarding of up to 2500 new staff including 500 paramedics to rural and regional areas and building 30 new stations in NSW.

The aim of SWIFT is to improve emergency response times, enhance the growth and career pathways for clinicians and the wellbeing and safety of staff.

One of the main objectives of SWIFT is to strengthen leadership with an uplift in management capability across frontline teams, through the Frontline Leadership Model [FLM]..."

1. I understand consultation with the relevant unions, the HSU and the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW) (the APA), around the implementation of the enhancements arising from SWIFT commenced in early 2023 with the first "PCC" meeting (which I understand means Peak Consultative Committee), having been held on 8 or 9 February 2023[9].
2. Ms Oxley[10] and Mr Willis[11] confirmed that the initial enhancement proposals did not provide for any additional management or supervisory resources in connection with the significantly increased paramedic workforce. It was anticipated the new Frontline Leadership Model (the FLM) would be implemented in a timely way and facilitate that enhanced leadership. In the course of consultation regarding the rollout of the initial enhancements, the Respondent took on feedback indicating a need for more leadership to support the increased paramedic workforce in the short term[12] and obtained approval (from the SWIFT Executive Steering Committee)[13] for "the addition of temporary Station Officer positions [as] an interim measure to support the increasing paramedic workforce pending the FLM reforms"[14] (my emphasis). As Mr Willis described it in his oral evidence, "We would implement temporary station officers to provide that initial level of additional management on a temporary basis until the new management structure was implemented."[15]
3. An email was sent from the Respondent to the PCC members on 14 February 2023 confirming the following (my emphasis):[16]

"Where a SWIFT enhancement is a complete new module, a Station Officer will be appointed. This will either be on a permanent or temporary 12-month basis to support existing management structures."

1. What amounts to a 'module' generally was the subject of contest in the evidence. There is very little contest in the evidence, however, that in the context of the SWIFT enhancements, the parties understood "a complete new module" to mean 11 paramedics and one team leader (now known as an SO), that would be rostered to work as a unit (or module) over a roster pattern (usually a 9 week roster pattern). To the extent there is any factual dispute about what a 'module' is, it is unnecessary to resolve that dispute to deal with the interim relief sought by the HSU.
2. The HSU's response to this email raised "concerns around the wording of the allocation being based on a 'complete new module', as it doesn't necessarily mean that an appropriate Paramedic to Station Officer ratio is being maintained" and pressed a position that "the current ratio be maintained: 11 Paramedics = 1 Station Officer. Further the positions should be permanent".
3. It is clear on the evidence, particularly that of Mr Willoughby and Ms Oxley, that the HSU, perhaps reluctantly (its preferred position being the SOs should be permanent[17]), accepted temporary SOs would be introduced pending the introduction of the FLM. The primary concern of the HSU was to ensure the face to face supervision afforded to the paramedic modules was provided until the FLM was implemented, whether it be by way of temporary appointments or otherwise. It is an agreed fact that[18]:

"Temporary Station Officer positions were introduced as an interim measure to support the paramedic workforce pending the Frontline Leadership Model (FLM) reforms".

1. Some 36 temporary SOs[19] were thereafter appointed on temporary contracts of 12 months duration "with possible extension"[20] at different stations "depending on the current requirements of the station including current Station Officer positions and the number of additional paramedics onboarded."[21] Each of those 36 temporary SOs were introduced with a new module[22]. At that time, an SO was the first line manager in an ambulance station.
2. There has been a delay in the development and rollout of the FLM. Mr Willis says[23] "It is my understanding that the implementation of FLM was delayed due to the Notifier invoking the 'status quo' on the program". Mr Hughes gives evidence to the same effect[24]. Mr Grayson says "...FLM has been held up for a number of years due to lack of clarity/head way."[25] Ms Oxley says that the FLM roll out has been delayed "due to a number of reasons" [26], but in her reply evidence, Ms Oxley does not state either Mr Willis or Mr Hughes are mistaken in identifying the invocation of 'status quo' by the HSU as one of them. I had foreshadowed an intention to take steps to try and resolve that broader dispute of the Commission's own motion[27], but am led to understand the parties have recently recommenced discussions regarding the implementation of FLM. Further meetings are scheduled through to January 2026. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary for the Commission to takes steps to resolve that dispute of its own motion.
3. Whatever be the reason for it, the continued delays in the roll-out of the FLM resulted in approval being given to the Respondent to rollout additional management resources in the form of permanently appointed Station Managers (SMs). The position of SM already existed in the classification structure in the Award (cl 5(j), Work Level Manager-Level 2[28]). The position was apparently first introduced into a predecessor of the Award in 2008 and was used in practice until in or around 2011. It is uncontroversial that as at 2024, there had not been SMs appointed to ambulance stations for some years - hence the deployment of SM positions in local management structuers in 2024 being described in the evidence as its 'reintroduction'. As Mr Hughes described it[29] "It was considered that the reintroduction of this role would be a relatively simple enhancement as it had previously been negotiated into the Award and [was] part of a model that was understood by the parties."
4. On 8 August 2024, the Respondent sent the HSU and APA an email about upcoming consultation sessions relating to the reintroduction of SM positions[30]. The email attached a copy of the SM PD (updated in relation to nomenclature and references, but otherwise substantively the same as had been previously agreed between the parties), a document describing the "Station Manager concept arrangements", and a list of the 56 places where an SM was to be appointed (based on the places where SMs had been positioned historically).[31]
5. The "concept arrangement" document identified SMs would be appointed as a Level 2 Manager under the Award (the existing classification), with a PD "unchanged since its initial publication" save for minor amendments to update references. The SM would report directly to a Duty Operations Manager. SOs would report directly to the SM. The SM would work an 8 line roster: meaning 12 hour shifts worked on a rotating pattern of 2 day and 2 afternoon shifts followed by 4 days off, averaging 38 hours per week over an 8 week roster.
6. That rostering pattern is significant, because it is (on any view of the various roster patterns described in evidence), different to the roster pattern of the paramedic modules (unlike SOs, who are rostered as part of the module, to provide face to face supervision when on shift).
7. SMs would be deployed as "part of the clinical response grid, as a rapid response tier"[32], meaning they would respond as a single unit, and so could respond quickly, but be somewhat limited in the services they could provide without assistance (for example, assistance would be required for patient transport). Recruitment would be merit based, and "Successful candidates will be appointed to Zones with management responsibility for a specific location(s), however there may be a requirement to work at other locations should the need arise"[33].
8. I understand the longer-term proposal was for the persons appointed permanently as an SM to be transitioned into a comparable position (the Clinical Manager position) in the FLM upon its introduction.
9. The marked up SM PD provided to the HSU with the 8 August 2024 email described the 'Purpose of the Position' in this way (emphasis added):[34]

"The Station Manager supervises Station Officers Team Leaders on a day to day basis to ensure the delivery of high quality, cost effective emergency health transport, clinical and operational practice, rescue and patient transport services for the community.

The Station Manager supervises a number of Station Officers Team Leaders at a large station or a number of Station Officers Team Leaders managing small teams across a group of rural stations.

The Station Manager may be part of an operational crew or rostered to supervisory roles depending on the size and location of the station and the number of Station Officers team leaders being supervised."

1. PDs are "developed between the parties".[35] It would appear it has always been a part of the PD of an SM that they "may be part of an operational crew or rostered to supervisory roles", depending on their location and the make-up of their station, but their primary role is and has always been the supervision of SOs (formerly Team Leaders). As I understand it, the extent to which SMs are now to be relied upon to provide daily supervision of an operational crew, rather than having an SO rostered as part of a module to provide that frontline supervision, lies at the heart of this dispute.
2. Consultation meetings relating to the reintroduction of SMs were held with the unions at least on 15, 22, 29 August 2024, and 19 September 2024[36].
3. From the minutes of those meetings (the content of which are not in any real dispute[37]) it is clear there was discussion around many aspects of the proposed reintroduction of SMs. Detailed written feedback was provided by the HSU on 21 August 2024[38] (in response to the documents sent on 8 August 2024 and the discussions at the first meeting). The matters raised by HSU were discussed at the consultation meeting the following day (22 August 2024), and a detailed written response was provided to the HSU's correspondence on 6 September 2024[39]. The matters still in issue were discussed in the meetings thereafter.
4. As a result of the consultation process, on the evidence before me the HSU had all its questions answered (albeit not everything they raised was agreed), and notably, the HSU were able to persuade the Respondent to reintroduce SMs at additional stations (it would appear 5 additional stations had SMs allocated as a result of the consultation process), and to move the specific station at which a number of the SMs would be located[40].
5. There can be no doubt on the evidence that the issue at the heart of this dispute was canvassed as part of those consultations. The meeting minutes of 19 September 2024 record under the heading "1.6 Other Business", the following (emphasis added):

"Question raised regarding the retention of 3 station officers (including 1 temporary) at Broken Hill with the introduction of a Station Manager. NSWA advised that it will clarify the position, but initial advice which extends to the broader context is that temporary SO positions would not be continued at locations due to receive a Station Manager

1. I understand the advice as to the temporary SO position not being continued where a permanent SM was appointed arose from a question from the HSU.[41] Mr Hughes gave unchallenged evidence that (emphasis added):[42]

"It is my recollection that during the consultation meetings, there was discussion around what would happen to the temporary Station Officers who had been introduced at some locations as a temporary measure to support existing management structures. NSWA clearly communicated during consultation that these roles would be transitioned back to a paramedic position on the introduction of the permanent Station Manager position. It was stated that 18 of the 61 locations receiving a Station Manager that had a temporary appointed Station Officer would be transitioned back to a paramedic position. No other temporary appointed Station Officer positions are impacted."

1. How the issue came up in the consultations is irrelevant. The fact is it was raised and discussed. The "Action Item" for the Respondent arising from the notation in the minutes of the 19 September 2024 meeting extracted at [29] above, was "NSWA to confirm arrangements for temporary SOs at locations slated to receive a Station Manager".[43]
2. On 30 September 2024, the Respondent sent the unions a response to the Action Items from the meeting on 19 September 2024. Amongst the list was the following (underlining added):[44]

"4. NSWA to confirm arrangements for temporary SOs at locations slated to receive a Station Manager

- The temporary SOs were introduced at some locations as a temporary measure to support existing management structures. With the introduction of the permanent extra position of SM at a location, a temporary SO position at that location will transition to a Paramedic position."

1. Ms Oxley said[45] that the HSU had verbally communicated it did not agree with the SOs transitioning back to a paramedic position, but there is no doubt on the evidence the HSU was well aware from (at the latest) 30 September 2024, that the Respondent was not going to deploy temporary SOs into further temporary engagements once an SM was appointed to a station. The station would not lose the paramedic that had been temporarily appointed as an SO - they would be transitioned back to their substantive paramedic position (and I infer, other than to deal with some local staffing anomaly such as occurred at Coffs Harbour, continue to be rostered as part of their module). The Respondent's position has not changed since at the latest 30 September 2024[46].
2. On 30 September 2024, the Respondent sent the HSU an additional email[47] regarding consultation regarding the reintroduction of SMs. It is a little lengthy, but in light of some of the HSU submissions in these proceedings it ought be set out (underlining added):

"Dear Stuart,

I write regarding the reintroduction of Station Manager.

NSWA sees the reintroduction of Station Managers as providing significant benefits for paramedics and operational managers.

As you are aware there has been a concerted effort by NSWA and the HSU to undertake consultation on this program.

Consultation meetings were commenced on 15 August following the provision of information including the concept of operation, proposed locations and draft role description on 8 August. Four meetings specific to Station Manager have since occurred and responses have also been provided to the written feedback from HSU.

As put forward during consultation, there is interest in progressing this program toward recruitment to support the benefits for our staff.

Based on the progress of consultation, we are now ready to proceed to the recruitment phase and would intend to commence advertising from Friday 4 October.

We wish to acknowledge the effort and engagement the representatives from the HSU have brought to the consultation.

This level of engagement has supported robust discussions and influenced outcomes.

Of note the consultation has supported an adjustment in the total number of locations for Station Managers from 56 to 61.

This was made possible following feedback on other historical locations.

Feedback has also resulted in adjustments to the actual locations for some Station Manager positions.

In regard to ongoing engagement, it is anticipated the recruitment process could take upward of three months.

During that time, work will continue on planning the implementation and on-boarding of the positions.

While elements relating to implementation have formed part of our consultation, we would reasonably expect to continue engagement with your union in the coming months and remain interested in matters that might arise during that period.

Attached for your reference is a bundle of information as shared with HSU representatives at various points in the consultation.

I would in particular draw your attention to:

Station Manager Locations - reflecting the adjustment from 56 to 61 locations,

Consultation action items - responses to final queries from the consultation meetings,

Station Manager RD - Role Description for the position.

The remainder of the documents primarily relate to meeting minutes and feedback to written input from HSU.

As you would appreciate there is a commitment to communicating the progress of the Station Manager initiative with staff.

This is particularly relevant in relation to the recruitment phase given the potential interest in the positions.

While there were some plans to progress this communication today, we wanted to first take the opportunity to collate and redistribute the attached information relating the consultation in the first instance. We would however still be aiming to communicate to staff in the earlier part of this week.

I have CC'd Tess Oxley and Chelsea Barker into this mail. Their contributions, and that of your other representatives, have been invaluable to date.

Thank you for the engagement and effort HSU has committed to the Station Manager program to date.

As always, please contact me should you have any queries or concerns."

1. There were subsequent meetings relating to the SM reintroduction on at least 17 October 2024[48], 21 November 2024[49] and 19 December 2024.[50]
2. Despite the invitation in the 30 September 2024 letter extracted at [34] above, there is no evidence the HSU raised any issue or engaged in any further correspondence regarding the subject of this dispute.
3. Unsurprisingly, from 30 September 2024 the Respondent considered "the industrial consultation process to be finalised and that it was able to proceed to the recruitment phase"[51]. That was made clear over the consultation meetings that occurred from that time through to the end of the year, and in correspondence to the workforce.
4. Fully aware that this was the Respondent's position on the temporary SOs upon SM recruitment, the HSU stood by whilst the SM recruitment campaign took place (applications for SM recruitment commenced on 4 October 2024 and ceased on 23 October 2024).[52] No dispute was raised under cl 47 of the Award directly with the Respondent. No dispute was raised in this Commission. There is no evidence the HSU at or around 30 September 2024 or in the months that followed had suggested the consultation regarding the reintroduction of the SMs (including as to what would happen to the temporary SOs upon the appointment of an SM), was inadequate or incomplete.
5. It is not entirely clear when the document became available to the workforce, I assume as part of the recruitment process, but the evidence includes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document entitled "Station Manager (SM) FAQ"[53]. Notable from the FAQ are the following:

"1. What is a Station Manager?

The Station Manager (SM) position was first introduced into the NSW Ambulance management structure in 2008 and remains active within the NSW Ambulance Paramedics (State) Award 2023. SM positions will not displace any existing substantive DOM & SO positions. The Station Manager is responsible as part of the sector management team for operational, clinical, and financial governance.

...

3. Is the Station Manager part of the Frontline Leadership Model (FLM)?

No. The Station Manager role is separate to the FLM and is being implemented as an immediate additional management support while consultation continues on the FLM.

4. Will the SM role continue once FLM is implemented?

No. SMs will transition to Clinical Managers under FLM.

...

7. If I am a substantive Station Manager what happens when FLM is implemented?

At FLM implementation employees substantively appointed as a Station Manager will transition to a Clinical Manager (CM) position.

...

11. What are my responsibilities as a Station Manager?

The Station Manager is responsible for the operational, clinical and financial governance of the station at the first line level. The position holder provides advice and direction to Station Officers on a shift-to-shift and day-to-day basis, on matters including rostering; clinical governance and leadership, staffing; coaching staff, asset and financial management.

The Station Manager liaises and maintains effective communication with the Duty Operations Manager, Station Officers, on-road operational staff and Control Centre employees in relation to operational matters.

...

14. Will there be on call for Station Managers?

No. There is no requirement for Station Managers to do on call."

1. The evidence discloses a risk assessment process in connection with the reintroduction of SMs was undertaken between December 2024 and 10 January 2025[54]. That included a meeting with the HSU on 19 December 2024 "with the opportunity to provide feedback"[55]. Despite the complaints made in these proceedings about the appropriateness of that risk assessment, Mr Hughes' unchallenged evidence was to the best of his knowledge "the Notifier did not raise any concerns following the outcome of the WHS risk assessment"[56].
2. By 26 May 2025, it is not in dispute the Respondent had created 61 SM positions in ambulance stations around the State, and recruited 57 SMs into those positions[57].

1. The genesis of the current dispute can be traced to the permanent appointment of an SM in Coffs Harbour.
2. On 10 June 2023 Coffs Harbour Station received a SWIFT enhancement that included 11 FTE paramedics and a temporary Station Officer (in other words, a complete new module). Following this temporary appointment, Coffs Harbour had 3 Station Officers, two of whom were permanent, and one of whom was temporary[58].
3. On 5 April 2025, months after the consultations between the HSU and the Respondent surrounding the reintroduction of SMs had concluded, the SM role was implemented at Coffs Harbour Station. The temporary SO position transitioned to a substantive paramedic role, as had been foreshadowed in the consultation process around the reintroduction of the SM positions in September 2024. The structure at Coffs Harbour still retained the 2 permanent Station Officer positions.
4. On 26 May 2025, the HSU raised a dispute with the Respondent in relation to the Coffs Harbour Station and sought to trigger the status quo under cl 47(g) of the Award[59] (underlining added):

"I write to you regarding a practice that has been reported by ADHSU delegates in the Mid North Coast.

It's been reported that a Station Officer has been appointed as an acting Station Manager at Coffs Harbour station, and NSWA is refusing to backfill the SO position that is now vacant. As such, Coffs Harbour is now running an SO down for the foreseeable future (use to have 3, now only have 2).

It is a longstanding practice that there is a SO for each and every module on a station. The appointment of a Station Manager does not substitute for a SO nor does it negate the need for an SO. Further, it was never raised during consultation that the appointment of a Station Manager would prevent the backfilling of an SO.

This is causing WHS issues as there is now reduced management and oversight on station. HSU is putting a status quo as per the Award on this practice, meaning that all 3 SO positions need to be rostered for Coffs Harbour station. The matter is now formally in dispute."

1. The claim in that letter that "it was never raised during consultation that the appointment of a Station Manager would prevent the backfilling of an SO" is self-evidently wrong.
2. The Respondent replied on 29 May 2025, explaining that the transitioning of the SO to their substantive paramedic position following the appointment of a permanent SM was consistent with both local consultation at Coffs Harbour (about which there is no real evidence) prior to the appointment of the SM, and as part of the consultation through the peak forums (traced earlier in these reasons).[60] The Respondent indicated a preparedness to resolve the dispute locally.
3. There was a further exchange of correspondence between the HSU and the Respondent in which the HSU demanded[61] "Immediate backfilling of the Station Officer position", claiming "Removing this role has left our members without proper on-road support during night shifts. It is affecting supervision, safety, and command functions at major incidents", demanded "Proper consultation with the workers directly affected" relying upon consultation obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), and the "NSW Health Industrial Consultative Arrangements Policy (PD2024_001)", and "access to all documents related to the decision-making".
4. The Respondent sent the HSU all the materials from the consultation regarding the reintroduction of SMs in August and September 2024 (I note the HSU industrial officer handling the matter had changed by this time, so the industrial officer involved in the consultations in September/October 2024 was no longer involved), and a meeting took place on 12 June 2025. That was followed by an email dated 13 June 2025, in which the HSU said, amongst other things (emphasis added):

"Thank you again for your time and engagement in yesterday's meeting.

Following the discussion and in light of the absence of agreement, I write to formally reinforce the invocation of status quo across the state regarding the current dispute.

To be clear, the Health Services Union is not opposing the implementation of Station Managers (SMs). Rather, the core of this dispute relates to the reduction of Station Officer (SO) positions at stations where SMs have been or are being introduced.

We formally challenge and dispute the current allocation of Station Officers across affected stations, particularly where modules are now operating without one SO per roster module. As outlined previously, the original understanding and commitment under the Frontline Leadership framework was that one SO would be appointed per module. The withdrawal of those roles - whether previously described as temporary or not - has not been agreed to and is the central matter in dispute.

Accordingly, we confirm that the status quo invoked by the union requires the reinstatement of all withdrawn or unfilled SO positions at stations impacted by this reduction, pending resolution of the dispute."

1. There is no evidence before me of "the original understanding and commitment under the Frontline Leadership framework" that "one SO would be appointed per module". There is, however, the evidence referred to earlier as to what a 'complete new module' would mean in the context of the SWIFT enhancements more generally.
2. The Respondent replied on 16 June 2025 saying, amongst other things (emphasis added):[62]

"From our perspective, the introduction of the SM positions and transition of the temporary SO positions are intrinsically linked and have been subject to consultation.

All matters raised during consultation had been responded to and NSWA has progressed with implementing these changes following the conclusion of consultation. The HSU did not raise a dispute or request status quo due to any concerns regarding the introduction of the SM roles and transition of the temporary SO positions.

Accordingly, NSWA is of the view that the established management positions have changed following implementation, as confirmed on 30 September 2024.

While the transition of temporary SO positions at each location may vary to account for local and contractual arrangements, the status quo, in our view, is to reflect the 'new' approved established management positions, which has already been implemented."

1. In a further reply on 18 June 2025, the HSU said, amongst other things:[63]

(1) In relation to the subject of the dispute (emphasis added):

"2. The Dispute Concerns SO Reductions and WHS Risks - Not the SM Role We reaffirm that the HSU is not disputing the establishment of the Station Manager role itself. The dispute centres solely on the removal or non-backfilling of SO roles, which has:

- Reduced frontline and night shift supervision;

- Weakened command and safety structures, especially during incidents;

- Created WHS risks that have not been appropriately assessed or mitigated."

(2) In relation to what the HSU asserted is the status quo:

"3. Status Quo Reflects Pre-Change Staffing Structures

The HSU does not accept that the newly implemented structure constitutes the new status quo. The operational staffing levels that existed prior to the withdrawal of SO positions form the basis of the union's status quo invocation.

This includes one SO per module, and any SO positions that were previously in place - regardless of whether they were designated as temporary - must remain rostered until the dispute is resolved."

(3) As for consultation, the HSU said it had not agreed to this change in practice but emphasised it had been validly consulted (emphasis added):

"While we acknowledge that conversations regarding the Station Manager (SM) rollout occurred in late 2024, we must respectfully restate the Health Services Union's position:

1. Feedback Was Provided - No Agreement Was Reached

Although HSU representatives and delegates participated in the consultation meetings, it is not accurate to say the union agreed to the removal of Station Officer (SO) positions as part of the SM rollout.

The union consistently expressed concerns about any reduction in SO numbers during those meetings. ...

At no point did the HSU support a model in which the introduction of SMs would result in a net reduction in SO coverage - particularly without mitigation strategies in place.

...

Lastly, we reject the suggestion that the absence of a written HSU submission equates to an absence of feedback. Union representatives clearly provided verbal feedback in formal meetings, which constitutes a valid form of consultation."

1. The Dispute was ultimately notified to this Commission on 10 July 2025, describing the dispute as set out in the extract at the outset of these reasons for decision.

1. This interlocutory hearing is directed to securing interim relief, reliant upon cl 47(g) of the Award. The Award was made by consent on 21 December 2023, with a nominal term of 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2026. It provided for a material change in the classification structure during that nominal term. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are a number of provisions directed to the management of change during the nominal term, including clauses 5(n), 49, 51 and 6, entitled "Introduction of Change" which provides:

"Any proposal that will significantly affect employees covered by the Award will be the subject of genuine consultation between the parties.

Should such a change lead to an expanded scope of practice for any classification or group of employees covered by this Award, the parties agree to discuss the impact of this on the classification structure."

1. The Award contemplates engagement on a permanent full-time, permanent part-time, temporary full-time, temporary part-time or casual basis,[64] and for employees to be provided with a position description (a PD) developed between the parties commensurate with their position[65] upon employment.
2. As would be apparent, the SM position was reintroduced using the PD previously applied to that position (updated to present day nomenclature and references, but not otherwise changed). That PD was supplied to the union (in a 'track changes' form to enable easy identification of relevant amendments) under an email of 8 August 2024. There is no evidence of any issue having been raised by the HSU with that updated PD, or the scope of duties of an SM therein described. The issue giving rise to this dispute as I understand it, although it is not expressed clearly in this way, is the deployment of SMs in the reintroduction of that position (including the extent to which they are to be required to undertake frontline supervision in the absence of an SO being on duty), is inconsistent with the PD or the historical deployment of SMs . In that connection, the PD has always provided:[66]

"The Station Manager may be part of an operational crew or rostered to supervisor roles depending on the size and location of the station and the number of Station officers team leaders being supervised."

1. Whether the HSU is correct in that submission is a question for the substantive hearing.
2. Returning then to the Award, clause 7, entitled "Employee's Duties" says (amongst other things, emphasis added): "The employer may direct an employee to carry out such duties as are reasonable, and within the limits of the employee's skills, competence and training consistent with the employee's classification, provided that such duties are not designed to promote de-skilling." Clause 7 otherwise requires directions under to be "consistent with the employer's duties to provide a safe and healthy working environment", and "undertaken in a fair, reasonable and sensible manner"[67]. The HSU did not rely upon these parts of cl 7 in these proceedings (and no mention is made of them in the correspondence that preceded the notification of this dispute).
3. Clause 47 of the Award provides (emphasis added):

47. Issues Resolution

(a) The parties must:

(i) Use their best endeavours to cooperate in order to avoid grievances and disputes arising between the parties or between the employer and individual employee(s); and

(ii) Abide by the procedures set out in this clause to resolve any issue which might arise; and

(iii) Place emphasis on negotiating a settlement of any issue at the earliest possible stage in the process.

(b) In this clause, "issue" means any question, issue, grievance, dispute or difficulty which might arise between the parties about:

(i) The interpretation, application or operation of this Award; or

(ii) Any allegation of discrimination in employment within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which is not covered by established policies and procedures applicable to the employer regardless of whether the issue relates to an individual employee or to a group of employees.

(c) Any issue, and in the case of a grievance or dispute, any remedy sought, must be discussed in the first instance by the employee(s) (or the Union on behalf of the employee(s) if the employee(s) so request) and the immediate supervisor of that employee(s).

(d) If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable time, it must be referred by the employee(s) immediate supervisor to his or her supervisor (or his or her nominee) and may be referred by the employee(s) to the Union Organiser for the employer. Discussions at this level must take place and be concluded within two working days of referral or such extended period as may be agreed.

(e) If the issue remains unresolved, it may be referred by any of the parties to more senior officials of the Union who must then confer with the Chief Executive (and/or his/her nominee(s)) of the employer. The conclusions reached by those representatives must be reported to the parties within two working days of referral or such extended periods as may be agreed.

(f) If these procedures are exhausted without the issue being resolved, or if any of the time limits set out in those procedures are not met, parties may seek to have the matter mediated by an agreed third party, or the matter may be referred, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, to the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales for its assistance in resolving the issue.

(g) Unless agreed otherwise by the parties, the status quo must continue whilst these procedures are being followed. For this purpose "status quo" means the work procedures and practices in place:

(i) Immediately before the issue arose; or

(ii) Immediately before any change to those procedures or practices, which caused the issue to arise, was made.

The employer must ensure that all practices applied during the operation of these procedures are in accordance with safe working practices.

(h) Throughout all the stages of these procedures, adequate records must be kept by the parties of all discussions.

(i) These procedures are to be facilitated by the earliest possible advice by one party to the other of any issue or problem which may give rise to a grievance or dispute.

(j) All matters in dispute arising out of the application of this Award may be referred to a disputes committee consisting of not more than six members with equal representatives of the employer and the Union. Such committee shall have the power to investigate all matters in dispute and report to the employer and the Union, respectively, with such recommendation as it may think right and, in the event of no mutual decision being arrived at by the Committee, the matter in dispute may be referred to the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

1. It is in that context I come to consider the application of cl 47(g) of the Award in the context of this interim hearing.

1. The HSU's submission can be reduced to the following propositions:

(1) NSW Ambulance organises its operational staff by reference to "modules". A standard or complete module (in an ambulance station) is made up of 12 full-time equivalent staff: 11 paramedics and one SO, who together work a 9-line roster. Each station that operates at least one module has at least one SO. Those stations with less than a full module also have an SO to provide supervisory support and manage day to day operations. The number of SO positions has historically been directly linked to the number of modules at a given station[68]. The important feature of a module is that the SO is rostered with that team, unlike the SMs that work on a different roster pattern.

(2) Consistent with that historic rostering ratio/practice, in the context of the SWIFT enhancements, wherever a "complete new module" (meaning, on the HSU's case, 11 FTE paramedic positions) was rolled out, a temporary SO was also allocated, pending the rollout of the FLM.

(3) The FLM has not been implemented. The SO roles introduced as part of the SWIFT enhancements, temporary pending the introduction of the FLM, should not have been impacted by the subsequent reintroduction of SMs. SMs were not introduced as part of the FLM. The roles and working patterns of SOs and SMs are different. SOs should continue to be rostered to provide frontline supervision pending the introduction of FLM.

(4) The refusal to backfill the position of SO (on a temporary or permanent basis) pending the introduction of the FLM, following the recruitment and deployment of SMs, is a change to a "consistent and clearly identifiable working practice and procedure [that] was in place - namely, that each module established under the SWIFT enhancement program included one dedicated SO"[69].

(5) Clause 47(g)(ii) of the Award provides, unless otherwise agreed, "the existing status quo - defined as the work practices and procedures in place immediately before the issue arose - must be maintained"[70]. In that connection, giving the words used their ordinary meaning viewed in context, a work practice means the habitual or customary performance" of work, and a work procedure is the act or manner of proceeding in any action or process or conduct in connection with work[71].

(6) The ratio of paramedics to SOs on a roster is a work practice and/or procedure. The respondent is required to maintain the status quo until this dispute is resolved, meaning they must continue to roster SOs as part of a complete module (at least up until the time FLM is introduced).

(7) The Commission should reject the Respondent's contention that the status quo was one manager per module, rather than one SO per module. The roles of SO and SM are different, with different scopes, responsibilities and reporting lines[72]. The HSU submitted (NSUBR at [16] - [17]):

"The Respondent claims that the status quo is "one manager per module." That phrase, on its face, suggests one dedicated manager per module - nothing else makes sense. If that were the case, then it would have to be a Station Officer, because Station Managers are not dedicated to a single module. They are allocated to stations and oversee multiple teams or modules. In fact, their very role involves supervising one or more Station Officers, not replacing them. So, the claim that a Station Manager fulfils the "one manager per module" requirement collapses under examination.

If, on the other hand, what the Respondent means is simply "some form of manager per module," then even a DOM would suffice. But that, again, defeats the entire purpose of introducing enhancements to management and supervision in the first place. After all, if the existing structure of DOMs was sufficient, there would have been no need to introduce more Station Officers in 2023, or Station Managers in 2024. The point here is that only Station Officers were intended to enhance management and leadership at the module level, and the Station Managers, introduced later, were designed to assist stations, not individual modules. They were layered on top of what already existed. So, trying to retroactively claim that one replaced the other is disingenuous and inconsistent with the Respondent's own timeline and logic."

(8) The failure to backfill SO positions following the implementation of SMs is not a mere technical breach of the status quo obligation[73]. SMs were an additional resource placed at locations where they had been placed historically, not based on an assessment of supervisory need[74]. Temporary SOs were already in place - there was no demonstrated operational need for an additional SM[75]. The very justification for temporary SOs pending the introduction of the FLM was because the Respondent accepted the increased paramedic workforce required additional frontline supervision and leadership.[76] In response to the submission (RSUB [27]) that "the Commission's general approach to workplace change is not to infringe upon an employer's right to manage unless the employer's action imposes unfair or unreasonable demands on employees or where it becomes unsafe", that HSU argued that was precisely the scenario it was dealing with. The removal and non-backfilling of Station Officer roles have placed unreasonable strain on the workforce and created clear safety concerns. It is a matter of employee safety, fairness, and operational stability.

(9) By this dispute the HSU is not seeking to interfere with managerial discretion in the operation of the Respondent's business (cf RSUB [25] - [26]), it is seeking compliance with the status quo obligation under cl 47 of the Award[77].

1. As for Relief, the Dispute notice sought "the status quo be maintained [pending resolution], specifically that one SO be rostered per module, consistent with the previously implemented operational structure" and "A recommendation pursuant to section 134(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) that NSW Ambulance reinstate all withdrawn or unfilled Station Officer positions previously embedded within rosters"[78]. In the NSUB the HSU said it "seeks orders from the Commission to maintain this arrangement until the matter is determined or the parties reach a resolution". The Orders it sought were proposed under the new s 136(1)(d) of the IR Act, enacted by the Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Workplace Protections) Act 2025 No 42. The HSU submitted the new section 136(1)(d) expressly empowers the Commission to make any order it considers necessary to resolve an industrial dispute, including orders consequent upon the application or interpretation of an industrial instrument.[79] The situation presented in these proceedings squarely engages section 136(1)(d) of the Act.[80] It sought orders from the Commission that:

(1) the Respondent be required to fill and backfill the Station Officer positions in question, on an interim basis, until FLM is rolled out.

(2) Other Orders the Commission deems fit.

1. The Respondent's submissions can be essentially reduced to these propositions:

(1) The Commission will not lightly interfere with the rights of an employer to manage its operations[81]. The Commission's general approach to workplace change is not to infringe upon an employer's right to manage unless the employer's action imposes unfair or unreasonable demands on employees or where it becomes unsafe[82]. It is not for the Commission to substitute its own views should they be different from the Respondent, "without more" being shown by the Notifier[83]. As Hungerford J said in BHP Steel AIS Pty Limited v Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division (unreported, Hungerford J, IRC94/2208, 7 November 1994):

"The way in which issues of this nature are assessed by the Commission, involving as they do potential intervention in the employer's operation and management of its business, requires the Commission not to assume the role of the employer. Rather, the approach is, and this is a longstanding and established principle, to attend to whether the employer's action imposes unfair or unreasonable demands on employees, not infrequently referred to as industrial injustice."

(2) SOs and SMs were only necessary because of the delay in the implementation of the FLM. The SOs affected by this dispute were always intended as an interim measure, reflected in the fact they were appointed on a temporary basis on 12 month engagements (with possible extension)[84]. They were never intended to be permanent[85].

(3) The reintroduction of SMs was to further support SWIFT enhancements pending the implementation of the FLM[86]. The SM role was one well understood, having been negotiated and accepted in the past[87]. The SM role continued to form part of the classification structure of the Award, and had an agreed PD.

(4) Both the introduction of SOs and SMs was the subject of extensive consultation[88]. As a result of feedback, a number of changes were made to the number and location of SM positions[89]. It was well communicated and understood that temporary SOs would revert to their substantive position as a paramedic upon the appointment of SMs[90]. The Notifier raised no objection to that proposal at the time of consultation[91].

(5) The Notifier was well aware that the Respondent considered consultation as at and end on 30 September 2024, and further that the Respondent conducted recruitment of SM positions over October 2024[92].

(6) As at 26 May 2025, when the status quo was invoked in relation to a dispute localised to Coffs Harbour, and later on 13 June 2025 when the Notifier sought to extend the status quo across the State, the factual position was there were 61 permanent SM positions created, 57 of which had been filled, and of the 36 temporary SO positions initially deployed, 18 had reverted to paramedic positions through natural attrition[93].

(7) The Commission should understand the concept of 'status quo' by examining its operation contextually, and in a manner consistent with the discussion of a status quo provision in the decision of the Full Bench in New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary on behalf of Western NSW Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1025 at [38] - [44].[94] In particular, here, as was the case with the clause under consideration by the Full Bench in that matter, the status quo provision informs the parties of how work is to continue while the dispute remains unresolved. It would be inconsistent with this purpose if the status quo provision were to be interpreted as operating to stop a party from continuing their business as they usually would while the dispute remains unresolved. As at 26 May 2025 (or 13 June 2025), the "status quo" was "one manager per module not one Station Officer per module"[95] as alleged by the Notifier, nor was it one SO per module plus one SM.[96]

(8) The Notifier seeks to place constraints on the Respondent's ability to implement SMs. Clause 47(g) operates in the general framework of the Award to preserve rather than to constrain the Respondent's rights to implement strategies to enhance its workforce.[97] The Respondent has the ultimate right to manage its operation according to its perceived business needs and lawful requirements.

(9) The Notifier is, by this dispute, attempting to transform a temporary position with respect to SOs into a permanent position, in circumstances where this was never the basis upon which the temporary SO roles were implemented or were operating in practice[98]. By the relief sought, the HSU was "trying to recover the ingredients from a cake that's already been baked"[99].

(10) While the Respondent accepts that the Commission has very wide powers to deal with disputes notified under s 130, including by way of recommendations, it is not empowered to make any kind of order which might seem just in the circumstances of the particular case.[100] The Commission must have regard to the public interest, including the statutory purpose, obligations and responsibilities of the Respondent[101], such as s 67B(1)(d) of the Health Services Act 1997 (NSW): "to adopt and implement all necessary measures (including systems of planning, management and quality control) as will best ensure the efficient and economic operation and use of resources in the provision of ambulance services".

(11) To attract the Commission's intervention, the Notifier is required to demonstrate with compelling evidence that reasons exist to support the proposition that the Commission should interfere with the Respondent's management of its operations under the HS Act. The Notifier has failed to do that here.

1. The Respondent submits not only that the Notifier has failed to make good its contentions with respect to the 'status quo', but that the Commission should in fact make a recommendation in its favour "permitting"[102]:

"36.1 Temporary Station Officer positions to expire upon their terms without the requirement to be backfilled; and

36.2 Station Managers to continue to fulfil their duties pursuant to the terms and conditions of their appointment.

1. It would appear the issues requiring determination are as follows:

(1) Does this dispute engage cl 47 of the Award at all?

(2) If so, what is the 'status quo' for the purpose of cl 47(g) of the Award, and is the Respondent acting consistently with that obligation?

(3) Is the Commission empowered by s 136(d) to make orders of the kind contemplated by the Notifier?

(4) What, if any, relief ought the Commission grant the Notifier in the circumstances?

Does this dispute engage cl 47 of the Award at all?

1. There is no suggestion the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. The dispute is clearly about an "industrial matter" within the meaning of s 6 of the IR Act. The resolution of this interim application will not finally dispose of that dispute. But the foundation of the interim relief the HSU seeks is cl 47(g) of the Award (extracted earlier in these reasons). At the outset of the hearing I raised whether the subject matter of this dispute was an "issue" for the purpose of cl 47 of the Award, and if it were not, whether cl 47(g) had any application to the dispute at all. I deliberately raised that matter at the outset as I was conscious the Notifier may wish to lead evidence (beyond what was in the statements), that linked the subject matter of the dispute to an "issue" as the Award defines it. I invited submissions (as part of the closing submissions) on that matter.
2. The proper operation cl 47 of the Award requires the relevant clause to be given meaning (a process of construction) and applied to the facts. The relevant principles of interpretation are not in dispute and were helpfully summarised by Davis J in New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v State of NSW [2024] NSWSC 636 at [15]. They need not be set out here.
3. It is trite that the interpretation of an industrial instrument commences with the ordinary meaning of the words used in the instrument having regard to relevant context and its industrial purpose.
4. Clause 47 of the Award meets the IR Act's requirement that an award contain a dispute resolution provision: an award cannot be made "unless it contains procedures for the resolution of industrial disputes under the award", providing for consultation at the workplace and the involvement of relevant industrial organisations[103]. Dispute settlement provisions in an award serve to encourage the orderly and fair disposition of disputes and, if possible, to avoid industrial disputation[104].
5. Clause 47, amongst other things, requires the parties to "Use their best endeavours to cooperate in order to avoid grievances and disputes arising between the parties ...",[105] to "Abide by the procedures set out in this clause to resolve any issue which might arise"[106], and requires the parties to "Place emphasis on negotiating a settlement of any issue at the earliest possible stage in the process".[107] The procedures in cl 47 "are to be facilitated by the earliest possible advice by one part to the other of any issue or problem which may give rise to a grievance or dispute". Clause 47 provides two procedures for the resolution of any "issue":

(1) The first is a familiar escalating process for discussions about "Any issue"[108], emphasising timeliness in the application of that procedure. Clause 47(d), the second stage of the procedure provides, if discussions at the first level of discussion are not resolved "within a reasonable time", the dispute "must" be escalated to the next level, stating "Discussions at this level must take place and be concluded within two working days of referral or such extended as may be agreed". Clause 47(e) provides if unresolved at the second stage the dispute "may" be referred to more senior levels, and if so, then "The conclusions reached by those representatives must be reported to the parties within two working days of referral or such extended periods as may be agreed". I note the procedure requires "adequate records [to be] kept by the parties of all discussions".

(2) Clause 47(j) permits "All matters in dispute arising out of the application of this Award" to be "referred to a disputes committee" made up of six members with equal representatives of the employer and the Union, who are to "investigate all matters in dispute and report to the employer and the Union, respectively, with such recommendation as it may think right".

1. If the dispute is not resolved by either of these procedures, or "if any of the time limits ...are not met" in the application of the first procedure, the matter "may" be referred to an agreed mediator or to the Industrial Relations Commission[109].
2. The status quote in clause 47(g) is directed the "work procedures and practices in place" before "the issue arose" or "which caused the issue to arise", and provides such work procedures and practices "must continue whilst these procedures are being followed". It obliges the Respondent to "ensure that all practices applied during the operation of these procedures are in accordance with safe working practices".
3. An "issue" in cl 47 is defined in subclause 47(b) (extracted above). No-one suggests the dispute in these proceedings arises from an allegation of discrimination (cf cl 47(b)(ii)), and so for cl 47 to be engaged at all, a dispute must fall within cl 47(b)(i) "any question, issue, grievance, dispute or difficulty which might arise between the parties about:...(i) The interpretation, application or operation of this Award..."
4. Self-evidently, the status quo obligation in cl 47(g) can only be engaged if an issue enlivens the dispute resolution procedure in cl 47 at all. The question I asked the parties to address was specifically how this dispute could be characterised as a dispute about the interpretation, application or operation of the Award - that is, an 'issue', for the purpose of cl 47(b) so as to engage cl 47, and 47(g) in particular.
5. In answer to the question the HSU submitted that this dispute "touche[d] multiple elements of the award" and was not only "a single issue matter"[110]. Specifically, the HSU referred to:

(1) The obligation to genuinely consult in cl 6[111] (it was said "there was no such genuine consultation, ...in relation to the decision to remove the station officer positions, which, by prior agreement, were to remain in place until the implementation of the FLM structure"). In this connection, the HSU referred to Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2021] FWCFB 6059; (2021) 310 IR 399 at [108], a decision discussing, amongst other things, the obligation to consult imposed by s 47 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW);

(2) The proper application of the Award particularly in relation to classification levels. In this connection it was said "the station officer role is classified as level 1 of management, whereas the station manager is a level 2 of management ... these roles are distinct and not interchangeable. The respondent has attempted to collapse this distinction, effectively, absorbing the supervisory responsibilities [of the SO] into the station manager role, and stating that it's only necessary ‑ one manager per module, thereby bypassing both classifications"[112]; and

(3) The failure to comply with the status quo requirement itself[113].

1. The Respondent submitted this was not a dispute about the application, interpretation or operation of the Award at all. There is no evidence of a dispute about consultation. There was a 'faint suggestion' that this dispute was about 'rostering', but there is no evidence that is being seriously advanced in these proceedings[114]. To the extent there is some suggestion of a safety issue, "if any station officers who were reverted back to their paramedic roles are still there, it makes very little sense to suggest that there was some risk"[115] (which I understand to mean, merely attaching the label of SO does not change the knowledge and skill of the paramedic who continues to form part of a roster module), and in any event, having regard to the classification descriptors of Manager Level 1 and Manager Level 2 in the Award, a Manager Level 2 "is assumed to be someone who has the knowledge and skills of a Manager Level 1, including being a paramedic"[116]. That role of the SM was historically agreed and has never changed. There is no evidence of a dispute about the application, interpretation or operation of the Award.
2. I do not accept the HSU's submission that the dispute currently before the Commission is about a failure to comply with cl 47(g). A dispute about compliance with cl 47(g) cannot of itself be the "issue" that attracts the operation of cl 47 in the first place. Clause 47(g) operates to ensure the interests of the parties in dispute are not prejudiced while the parties follow the dispute resolution process[117]. It has no work to do unless and until an "issue" within the meaning of cl 47(b) is raised, thereby invoking the dispute settlement procedure. I reject the submission the dispute that invoked the operation of cl 47 in the first place was a dispute over the application of cl 47(g).
3. Of course if a dispute over an issue arises and the dispute settlement procedure is engaged and the status quo invoked, and there is a subsequent dispute over whether a party is complying with its obligations under cl 47(g), that further dispute would raise an issue about the interpretation, application or operation of the Award. That is not, however, what has been notified to this Commission. There is no evidence that anything has materially changed since the invocation of the status quo on 26 May 2025.
4. To the extent the HSU submits this dispute is properly characterised as a dispute about the interpretation, application or operation of cl 6, and in particular the obligation to genuinely consult, I do not accept that submission:

(1) There was no complaint of inadequate consultation under the Award at or around 30 September 2024, or in the letter of 26 May 2025 at the genesis of the current dispute, or in the 13 June 2025 correspondence from the HSU extending the scope of the dispute beyond Coffs Harbour, or in the 18 June 2025 letter reinforcing the HSU position, or in the Dispute notice itself.

(2) The Dispute notice articulates a dispute about "the reduction in SO staffing, which has occurred without agreement and has altered long-standing operational support structures at station level" (emphasis in original). That is consistent with the preceding correspondence. In its 13 June 2025 letter, the HSU says "the core of this dispute relates to the reduction of Station Officer (SO) positions at stations where SMs have been or are being introduced." In the 18 June 2025 letter the HSU says "The dispute centres solely on the removal or non-backfilling of SO roles" with the attended consequences alleged.

(3) In the 18 June 2025 letter the HSU does not allege a lack genuine consultation under the Award. Quite the contrary. It acknowledges "HSU representatives and delegates participated in the consultation meetings" but that the union had not "agreed to the removal of Station Officer (SO) positions as part of the SM rollout", emphasising "Union representatives clearly provided verbal feedback in formal meetings, which constitutes a valid form of consultation." As the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission in CFMEU v Mr Arthur Coal observed in its summary of established principles with respect to an obligation to consult (emphasis added)[118]:

"an ordinary understanding of the word "consult" would suggest that the obligation to consult does not carry with it any obligation either to seek or to reach agreement on the subject for consultation. Consultation is not an exercise in collaborative decision-making. All that is necessary is that a genuine opportunity to be heard about the nominated subjects be extended to those required to be consulted before any final decision is made"

1. With respect, trying to characterise this dispute as being about the operation of cl 6 of the Award was a transparent attempt to frame this dispute so it appeared to attract the operation of cl 47, in order that the HSU could assert maintenance of the 'status quo'. I accept the Respondent's submission that there is no evidence of this being a dispute about consultation.
2. As to the remaining contention, whilst the issue was not framed in the dispute notice as 'collapsing' the roles of Manager Level 1 and Manager Level 2, from the outset the substance of the dispute has been framed as one directed to the proper supervisory role of SOs and SMs:

(1) In the email of 26 May 2025, the genesis of the current proceedings, the HSU, having raised concern about the refusal to backfill the SO position upon the appointment of an SM, says[119]:

"It is a longstanding practice that there is a SO for each and every module on a station. The appointment of a Station Manager does not substitute for a SO nor does it negate the need for an SO. ...

This is causing WHS issues as there is now reduced management and oversight on station."

(2) In the email of 13 June 2025, having referred to the "core of this dispute" as noted above, the HSU says:[120]

"We formally challenge and dispute the current allocation of Station Officers across affected stations, particularly where modules are now operating without one SO per roster module. As outlined previously, the original understanding and commitment under the Frontline Leadership framework was that one SO would be appointed per module. The withdrawal of those roles - whether previously described as temporary or not - has not been agreed to and is the central matter in dispute."

(3) In the email of 18 June 2025, having referred to the HSU's "consistently expressed concerns about any reduction in SO numbers" during the consultation meetings in 2024, the HSU emphasised "The understanding was that SMs would enhance, not replace, on-road supervisory capacity", and continued to say:[121]

"At no point did the HSU support a model in which the introduction of SMs would result in a net reduction in SO coverage - particularly without mitigation strategies in place."

"We reaffirm that the HSU is not disputing the establishment of the Station Manager role itself. The dispute centres solely on the removal or non-backfilling of SO roles, which has:

• Reduced frontline and night shift supervision;
• Weakened command and safety structures, especially during incidents;
• Created WHS risks that have not been appropriately assessed or mitigated.

The changes have materially altered operational support structures and were implemented without addressing the specific risks raised by members or ensuring equivalent coverage."

(4) The Dispute notice itself, as referred to earlier in these reasons, focuses on a dispute about "the reduction in SO staffing" altering "long-standing operational support structures at station level" (emphasis in original).

1. Clause 5 of the Award contains the classification structure, referred to as Work Levels". The "Manager Work Levels" set out in subclauses 5(i) to (l), which include Manager - Level 1 and Manager - Level 2, and "are intended to encompass employees who are registered paramedics and appointed to management roles". The "Positions" within Manager Level 1 include persons appointed as a "Team Leader". It is not in dispute that an SO is a Team Leader, or that SOs are appointed as Manager - Level 1 employees. The positions within Manager - Level 2 include persons appointed as a "Station Manager". Clause 5(n) provides, amongst other things, that the "assignment of a classification to a work level in this Award must be done by genuine consultation between the parties with a mind to achieve agreement".
2. The Award requires employees to be provided "with a position description as developed between the parties commensurate with their position"[122]. The position description of an SM is in evidence. It is clear the position focuses upon the management of teams via interface with SOs, rather than the face to face supervision of a team directly. It is sufficient for present purposes to emphasis the "Purpose of Position" in the PD (using the marked up version of the PD disclosed on 8 August 2024):

"The Station Manager supervises Station Officers Team Leaders on a day to day basis to ensure the delivery of high quality, cost effective emergency health transport, clinical and operational practice, rescue and patient transport services for the community.

The Station Manager supervises a number of Station Officers Team Leaders at a large station or a number of Station Officers Team Leaders managing small teams across a group of rural stations.

The Station Manager may be part of an operational crew or rostered to supervisory roles depending on the size and location of the station and the number of Station Officers team leaders being supervised."

1. I would add the responsibilities of the SMs upon their reintroduction were described in answer to Question 11 in the FAQ document circulated by the Respondent, extracted at [39] above.
2. Some of the Respondent's submissions on this question seemed to raise the merits of the dispute, rather than the proper characterisation of what the dispute is about (for example, whether there was in fact any 'risk' arising from an SO reverting to the position of paramedic, but still being available for deployment in the same module). The merits have not yet been heard.
3. I accept the substance of the dispute raised by the HSU, directed as it is to the nature and scope of the supervisory roles of SOs and SMs, respectively Manager Level 1 and Manager Level 2 under the Award, in the context of the reintroduction of the SM position is properly characterised as a "question, issue, grievance, dispute or difficulty" about, at the least, the application or operation of the Award, and as such is about an issue within the meaning of cl 47(b).
4. In addition, although it was not specifically raised by the HSU, aspects of the way in which the asserted collapsing of Manager Level 1 and Manager Level 2 are said to impact on the work of employees may raise the duties of employees under cl 7 of the Award (extracted earlier in this decision). Specifically the obligation on the Respondent to ensure employees, who are bound to perform "such duties as are...reasonable" and "consistent with the employee's classification"[123], are allocated duties in a "fair, reasonable and sensible manner"[124], and "consistent with the employer's duties to provide a safe and healthy working environment"[125].

What is the 'status quo' for the purpose of cl 47(g) of the Award, and is the Respondent acting consistently with that obligation?

1. Clause 47(g) is directed to the maintenance (during the dispute resolution processes) of the work procedures and practices in place (a question of fact), at two potentially different points in time: either "Immediately before the issue arose", which may look to a time before any change to work practices or procedures has occurred, or "Immediately before any change to those procedures or practices, which caused the issue to arise, was made", which necessarily looks to work procedures and practices in place before the issue arose. More specifically, to the work procedures and practices in place before any change which caused the issue to arise were made.
2. The operation of cl 47 of the Award is, despite the differences in language between the award under consideration in New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary on behalf of Western NSW Local Health District and cl 47 of the Award, is accurately described in the decision of the Full Bench[126] at [50] - [51], modified to reflect cl 47(b):

"...The Status Quo Provision will apply to the broad range of disputes that may arise within the context of ...[cl 47(b)] ... and requires that the established work practices and procedures will continue as they were immediately before the dispute arose, or as they were immediately before any change to those procedures or practices, which caused the issue to arise (provided these are safe).

Contrary to the Appellant's submissions, the subclause will apply in every dispute. As we have noted, the Status Quo Provision requires in such matters that what has happened historically (the work practices and procedures in place), must continue until the resolution of the dispute, or if the dispute is about the work practice or procedure, what was in place immediately prior to the dispute must be retained during the currency of the dispute."

1. In terms, the concept of 'status quo' in cl 47(g)(ii) will require the reversion to work practices and procedures extant before any change, if a change to work procedures and practices is what caused the issue to arise. The Respondent's complaint that the notifier may be engaged in "an exercise of trying to recover the ingredients from a cake that's already been baked", may ring hollow, as that is precisely what cl 47(g)(ii) contemplates.
2. Which of these two alternative concepts of 'status quo' (ie s 47(g)(i) or (ii)) applies to a dispute will inevitably be determined by the facts of the given case, having regard to the parties obligations under cl 47 viewed as a whole (in particular, cl 47(a) and (i)).
3. I have no difficulty accepting that the scope of the supervisory work performed by SOs and SMs, and the allocation or rostering of SOs as the Team Leader of a 'module' of paramedics, is a work procedure and/or practice within the meaning of cl 47(g) of the Award. A work practice or procedure may be something less than a documented policy[127].
4. The HSU says the 'status quo' it invokes is that contemplated by cl 47(g)(ii). The 'issue' is the role of an SO and an SM (Manager Level 1 and Manager Level 2 under the Award), and the reduction in SO staffing arising from the introduction of SMs, which it is said altered long standing operation support structures at station level. The change to work procedures and practices is the change to SO supervision of a module, so that there is no longer an SO to each complete module. That change was implemented after the consultation in September 2024. It is the work procedures and practices in place before September 2024 that the HSU says reflects the status quo for the purpose of cl 47(g)(ii).
5. The Respondent says the relevant 'status quo' are the work procedures and practices that existed immediately before the issue arose: cl 47(g)(i). The issue arose when, looked at generously, the HSU raised the issue and invoked the status quo (albeit then directed only to Coffs Harbour) by way of correspondence dated 26 May 2025. The Respondent says that by that time, the relevant work procedures and practices had changed, so that the relevant work practice and procedure did not involve the allocation (or rostering) of one SO per complete module (as it appears the Respondent accepts was the position following the agreement in February 2023 to deploy temporary SOs to enhance supervision in the field pending the introduction of the FLM), but one manager per module[128]. As it said in answer to the 13 June 2025 email from the HSU:[129]

"From our perspective, the introduction of the SM positions and transition of the temporary SO positions are intrinsically linked and have been subject to consultation. All matters raised during consultation had been responded to and NSWA has progressed with implementing these changes following the conclusion of consultation. The HSU did not raise a dispute or request status quo due to any concerns regarding the introduction of the SM roles and transition of the temporary SO positions.

Accordingly, NSWA is of the view that the established management positions have changed following implementation, as confirmed on 30 September 2024."

1. The Respondent submitted the status quo was that which existed immediately before the email of 26 May 2025 arising from the dispute at Coffs Harbour (or the email of 13 June 2025 which purported to extend the 'status quo' across the State, albeit there is no difference in the factual position between those two points in time[130]). By 26 May 2025, 61 SM positions had been created, 57 had been filled, and 18 temporary SOs had transitioned back to their substantive position of paramedic.
2. I accept the Respondent's submission. Clause 47(a) requires[131] the parties to "use their best endeavours to co-operate in order to avoid grievances and disputes arising..."[132], to abide by the dispute resolution procedures "to resolve any issue which might arise"[133], and emphasises negotiations in settlement of the "issue" "at the earliest possible stage in the process".[134] The parties have committed themselves to the timely engagement of the dispute resolution procedure. That includes having committed themselves to, amongst other things, engaging the dispute resolution procedure to resolve any issue "which might arise"[135] (consistent the definition of "issue" in cl 47(b): "any question, issue, grievance, dispute or difficulty which might arise between the parties"). That is to say before the dispute has actually arisen, but where it may be clear such an issue might arise. That construction of the parties commitments in cl 47(a) is reinforced by cl 47(i): "These procedures are to be facilitated by the earliest possible advice by one party to the other of any issue or problem which may give rise to a grievance or dispute."
3. The HSU knew from 30 September 2024 (at the latest) that temporary SOs would not be continued beyond the appointment of permanent SMs, albeit it emphasises it did not agree with that change. That change in practice surrounding front-line supervision was, on the evidence and as the Respondent correctly observed, intrinsically connected with the reintroduction of SMs from the outset. The change in work procedure and practice surrounding front-line supervision was made upon the conclusion of the consultation surrounding the reintroduction of SMs (30 September 2024), or at the latest, upon the commencement of the recruitment process for SMs to put that change into effect (4 October 2024). That it took some time to give practical effect to that change, because it took some time to undertake the recruitment process for SMs, does not alter the fact the change work procedures and practices surrounding front-line supervision occurred when the final decision to implement the SM reintroduction was made.
4. On the evidence, the first time the HSU raised the "issue" was on 26 May 2025[136], when the HSU said "The appointment of a Station Manager does not substitute for a SO nor does it negate the need for an SO" and that to do so was "causing WHS issues as there is now reduced management and oversight on station", despite the fact it knew of the change to the engagement of temporary SOs upon the appointment of SMs from as long ago as 30 September 2024 (at the latest).
5. On the evidence, the Respondent is correct in submitting that as at 26 May 2025, the "status quo" was that an SM would absorb the supervisory responsibility of the temporarily appointed SOs, who would be transitioned to paramedic upon the appointment of the SM (I would not accept the more generic position contemplated by the Respondent's submission that the status quo was "one manager per module not one Station Officer per module"). Nor was the status quo one SO per module plus one SM
6. It must have been apparent in September 2024 that the 'issue' ultimately raised on 26 May 2025 about supervision of modules by SMs would arise upon the reintroduction of SMs (presumably why it did not agree to transitioning the temporary SOs back to their substantive paramedic role during consultation in the first place), and yet did nothing about it. The HSU stood by an allowed the SM recruitment process to unfold. It did not invoke the dispute settlement procedure (and thereby trigger the status quo obligation) at that time, despite the fact it was bound by cl 47 to invoke the dispute resolution procedures "to resolve any issue which might arise"[137], nor did it comply with its obligation to facilitate the dispute settlement procedures by "the earliest possible advice by one party to the other of any issue or problem which may give rise to a grievance or dispute."
7. I cannot accept the appropriate conception of the 'status quo' in this case is, as the HSU contends, the work procedures and practices prior to the conclusion of the consultation processes surrounding the reintroduction of SMs in September 2024.

1. The Orders (or Recommendations) the HSU seeks by way of this interim application do not, in my view, reflect the proper application and operation of cl 47(g) of the Award. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Orders it sought are within the ambit of what may be done under s 136(1)(d) of the IR Act, or whether it would be appropriate to grant relief to the Notifier in the circumstances. In deference to the parties' submissions, I would however make three observations:

(1) Assuming the Order was appropriately drafted, I can see no reason why the Commission could not, in discharging its functions in connection with the resolution of a dispute about the application of a status quo obligation in a dispute settlement procedure in an industrial instrument, determine the proper interpretation, application or operation of the instrument (s 175 of the IR Act) and in light of that determination, make an order, with prospective application (on an interim or final basis), about the application of that feature of the award for the purposes of resolving the dispute.

(2) Status quo obligations in an award bind the parties by force of s 12 of the IR Act. Obligations that arise under an award, including a status quo obligation preserving work procedures and practices pending the resolution of a dispute, are extant, as are any risks, costs or inconvenience which flows from those obligations[138]. Compelling compliance with such an extant obligation does not involve interference with an employer's managerial prerogative.

(3) As to whether relief would be granted if it could have been shown the Respondent had been acting in a manner inconsistent with its obligation under cl 47(g) of the Award, whilst I recognise relief under s 136 is discretionary, I adopt what Commissioner Sloan said in ASMOF (NSW) v Ministry of Health [2019] NSWIRComm 1041 at [87] (with which the Chief Commissioner Constant agreed in Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (NSW) v Health Secretary [2021] NSWIRComm 1002 at [52]): "It cannot realistically be suggested that being aware of the possibility of a party acting, or purporting to act, in breach of an award the Commission would, as a matter of 'discretion', sit idly by".

1. In light of the conclusions I have reached, the HSU's application for interim Orders under s 136(1)(d) of the IR Act, or a Recommendation under s 136(1)(a) of the IR Act, is refused.
2. The matter will be listed for Directions via AVL at midday, Monday 10 November 2025, at which time I will hear from the parties as to whether further Conciliation is appropriate (before myself or another member of the Commission), or whether the matter should be programmed for substantive hearing.

[1] The Health Secretary being the nominal employer of staff in the NSW Health Service, including those employed by the Ambulance Service of NSW under Chapter 5A of the Health Services Act 1997, and also the nominal employer of members of the NSW Health Service in proceedings before this Commission: see ss 116 and 116H of the Health Services Act 1997

[8] Statement of Agreed Facts and Disputed Facts and Issues at [3]

[9] Ex N4 pg 15; Ex R1 at [18]; Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 52 line 3 to 27

[11] Ex R1 at [33], and Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 52 line 45 to pg 53 line 24

[14] Ex R1 at [14]; Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 52 line 35 - 37

[15] Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 53 line 29-37

[19] Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 56 line 45 to 50

[20] Ex R1 [17], DW1 pg 140; Agreed Facts at [7]

[22] Willis TS 15/10/2025 pg 56 line 48 to 50

[36] Ex R2 at [17], DH1, DH2, DH3 and DH4; Agreed Facts at [10]

[37] I note there is said to be one omission from DH4 (Ex N2 at [11]), but there is no evidence the minutes are otherwise inaccurate.

[40] A convenient summary can be seen at Ex R2 DM8 pg CB205

[41] Ex N2 at [11]; Oxley TS 15/10/2025 pg 22 line 1 to 14

[45] Ex N2 at [11], Oxley TS 15/10/2025 pg 22 line 49 to pg 23 line 2, pg 23 line 34 - 36, line 50 to pg 24 line 5

[46] Ms Oxley accepted this proposition in her evidence: TS 15/10/2025 pg 26 line 35 to 47

[47] Ex R2 DH9 CBpg 208-209; Agreed Facts at [11]

[52] Ex R2 at [43] - [45], DH10 and DH11l; Agreed Facts at [12] - [13]

[54] Ex R2 at [28] - [32], DH12 - DH14

[58] Ex R1 at [31], DW2 pg CB144l; Agreed Facts at [16]

[66] Ex R2, DH7 CB pg 194. The underlining and interlineation is in the original.

[71] New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary on behalf of Western NSW Local Health District [2018] NSWIRComm 1079 at [73] - [75], [81] - [82], affirmed on appeal New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary on behalf of Western NSW Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1025 at [73] - [75], [81] - [82]

[81] RSUB [26], referring to Re Cram; ex parte New South Wales Colliery Proprietors' Association Ltd [1987] HCA 28; (1987) 163 CLR 117 at 136-137; In re Dispute Between the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (Coast District) and the Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd (1950) 49 AR 371 at 372; BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Limited v The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division [1994] NSWIRComm 127.

[82] RSUB at [27], referring to The Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (NSW Division) v BHP Steel Sheet & Coil Products Division [1992] NSWIRComm 5; John Lysaght (Australia) Limited v Automotive, Metals and Engineering Union and the Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia, New South Wales Division [1994] NSWIRComm 31; John Lysaght (Australia) Limited - Port Kembla - Slit Recoil Line - Rates of Pay Award [1995] NSWIRComm 18; Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Employees State Rail Authority of New South Wales (XPT Case) [1984] CthArbRp 432; (1984) 295 CAR 188 at 191; and Health Services Union v Ambulance Service of New South Wales re- Changes to Demand Protocol [2008] NSWIRComm 1027 and Notification under Section 130 by the Ambulance Service of New South Wales of a dispute with Health Services Union re-threatened industrial action in Inner Hunter Area [2008] NSWIRComm 1136.

[83] RSUB [28], referring to In re Department of Tourism Appointments [1980] AR (NSW) 241 at [259].

[89] RSUB [15], [18] and oral submissions

[97] RSUB at [34], referring to Grayson DP in STA NSW v RTBU NSW [2008] NSWIRComm 19 at [16]- [17].

[100] Referring to Notification under section 130 by the New South Wales Teachers Federation of adispute with the Department of Education and Training re casual teacher (2003) 121 IR 177; [2003] NSWIRComm 145 at [31]- [32]; as cited in Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW (In Orders Dispute) [2022] NSWIRComm 1016 at [39].

[101] RSUB [20] - [24], referring to Application for NSW Ambulance Safe Paramedic Crewing Award [2022] NSWIRComm 1037 at [111]- [113], and s 67B of the Health Services Act 1997

[104] New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary o/b Western NSW Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1025 at [40]

[110] TS 16/10/2025 pg 98 lines 19 - 20

[111] TS 16/10/2025 pg 98 lines 20 - 21

[114] TS 16/10/2025 pg 107 line 21 to pg 108 line 3

[115] TS 16/10/2025 pg 108 line 43 - 45

[116] TS 16/10/2025 pg 108 line 50 to pg 109 line 3

[117] New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary o/b Western NSW Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1025 at [40]

[118] At [108] by reference to CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1009; (2016) 262 IR 176 at [60]. See also ASMOF (NSW) v Heath Secretary [2023] NSWIRComm 1105 at [90]

[126] [2019] NSWIRComm 1025

[127] New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association v Health Secretary on behalf of Western NSW Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1025

[128] RSUB at [p15] - [18], [31]

[130] TS 16/10/2025 pg 104 lines 39 to 49

[138] Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (NSW) v Ministry of Health [2019] NSWIRComm 1041 at [88], per Sloan C (ASMOF (NSW) v Ministry of Health)