Health Services Union SA/NT v Chief Executive, Attorney General's Department

These are my reasons for making this order.
The industrial dispute concerned a proposed restructure of the Clinical Information Systems, in particular the Electronic Medical Records Team (EMR), within the Department of Health and Wellbeing (DHW). However, the respondent to these proceedings is the Chief Executive, Attorney General's Department (CE, AGD) as the declared employer pursuant to s 4A of the Fair Work Act 1994 (FW Act) and reg 4 of the Fair Work (General Regulations) 2009.

Health Services Union SA/NT v Chief Executive, Attorney General's Department | Case summary | Zoe

[7]

On the substantive dispute, the parties had participated in two compulsory conciliation conferences conducted by a Commissioner of the SAET on 27 November 2025 and 4 December 2025 at which progress was made on some issues. A third conciliation conference was scheduled for 19 December 2025 to continue this dispute resolution process.
On 10 December 2025 the HSU received from DHW an 11 page response to issues that the HSU had raised with DHW as far back as 10 June 2025.[3]
Shortly thereafter, having heard from members that DHW intended to commence implementing the restructure while the dispute was still ongoing, the HSU wrote on 12 December 2025 to the Chief Executive of the DHW requesting an urgent undertaking by close of business 15 December 2025, that the DHW would not implement the restructure while the dispute remained unresolved.[4] The HSU grounded this request in cl 12.4 of the Allied Health Professions, Assistant and Psychologists Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the AHP Agreement).
On 16 December 2025 the respondent wrote back confirming that DHW intended to proceed with implementing the restructure, but while doing so would "quarantine any positions which would have an impact on the AHP cohort".[5]
Following the filing of the HSU AFD on 18 December 2025, the respondent wrote to the Commissioner, expressing the view that it did not consider further conciliation would assist in resolving the dispute, and requesting that the conference scheduled for the next day be vacated and the matter referred for hearing and determination.
The HSU responded that it remained willing to continue with dispute resolution but that it sought interim orders for the preservation of the status quo which it considered could be made by the Commissioner as the dispute is in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal sitting as an industrial relations commission.
The respondent followed the next day repeating its request for referral to a presidential member and, while denying any obligation to do so, committed to not implement the restructure until the HSU AFD had been considered by a presidential member, if the referral for hearing and determination was made and the conciliation conference vacated.
On the basis of this commitment, the HSU did not object to the conference being vacated.
The substantive dispute and the AFD were thus referred to me for hearing and determination, with the matter listed for a directions hearing on 16 January 2026.

[8]

At this hearing I received by consent two affidavits of Nathan Fielder dated 18 December 2025 and 15 January 2026 on behalf of the HSU; and from the respondent an affidavit of Bret Morris, dated 15 January 2026.
The argument of the HSU in relation to the AFD was that the dispute resolution clauses of both the AHP Agreement and the South Australian Public Sector Enterprise Agreement: Salaried 2021 (the Salaried Agreement) applied to its dispute with DHW and both required the parties to maintain the status quo until the dispute was resolved. In the case of the AHP Agreement the HSU relied on cl 12.4. In relation to the Salaried Agreement, it relied on cl 35.4.2. There is no material difference between these clauses.
While the respondent agreed that the status quo provision in the AHP Agreement applied, it did not agree that the dispute with the HSU included the Salaried Agreement or employees who are not members or eligible to be members of the HSU.
The practical effect of this difference was that the respondent accepted an obligation pursuant to the AHP Agreement to preserve the status quo, but only in relation to employees and positions classified as Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) in the existing structure, whereas the HSU claimed that the obligation extended to the whole restructure proposal.
The respondent also argued that it had reached agreement on the restructure with the Public Service Association of South Australian (PSA) on behalf of administrative employees and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (SA Branch) (ANMF) on behalf of nursing employees, and those employees would be disadvantaged by any delay in implementing the restructure in respect of positions within the administrative and nursing streams.
As none of the affidavits mentioned notice to the PSA or the ANMF of the dispute proceedings, and there was no indication on the Tribunal file, I enquired of the parties whether they had been notified in accordance with s 18 of the FW Act. I was informed by counsel that neither party had notified those unions.
Section 18 sits within Division 2 of the FW Act, which is entitled - Processes when constituted as an industrial relations commission; and reads as follows:

[26]

The context for the disputed restructure arises from the completion of the activation or roll out of the EMR system to all DHW health sites, which was completed in June 2025.
The EMR system had its origins in 2011 with a decision of DHW to implement an integrated Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and Patient Administration System (PAS) which was collectively referred to as EPAS.
By 2018 EPAS had progressed to commencing a trial activation at two health sites - the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) and the Mount Gambier District Health Service (MGDHS). There was a change of State Government that year and EPAS was paused while a review was conducted.
As a result of the review, in 2019 the transition from paper to electronic medical records was renamed the Electronic Medical Records Project, with changes to the oversight, management, funding and timelines for the transition. There were a number of related administrative changes arising from 36 recommendations from the review, including the establishment of Digital Health SA.
Between 2019 and 2025, the transition was divided into three stages, each of which required further State Government approval and funding.
Approval was given in 2019 for the EMR Project to continue activation at the two exemplar sites with an estimated completion date of 31 March 2020, with further approval and funding dependent on the success of that roll out.
A three year approval and funding allocation was included in the 2020-2021 State Budget with a target of activation at all metropolitan sites by 30 June 2023, with further approval and funding dependent on success of that roll out.
Approval and funding for rollout of the system to the remaining regional sites was given by State Cabinet in December 2022 with a forecast completion of June 2025.
With the EMR roll out complete in June 2025, DHW proposed the subject restructure to move from what it describes as a project model, to a business as usual model (BAU) within the Clinical Information Systems (CIS) branch of Digital Health SA.
Throughout the period of the development and roll out of the EPAS and then the EMR, DHW engaged employees on fixed term contracts, for which it relied on the power in s 45(3)(a) of the Public Sector Act 2009 to do so where the employees are employed to perform duties required for a project.
Phase 1 of the restructure was implemented without dispute. It involved Functional Units 1, 3 and 4 which provide essential systems maintenance and support. All employees in these units were and are within the administrative services streams of the Salaried Agreement and an undisclosed number of them were transitioned to ongoing employment.
Phase 2 of the proposed restructure involves Functional Units 2, 5 and 6 and leadership roles. Employees in these three functional units include administrative and medical scientist roles covered by the Salaried Agreement, allied health professionals covered by the AHP agreement and nursing and midwifery employees covered by the Nursing/Midwifery (South Australian Public Sector) Enterprise Agreement 2022.
Phase 2 proposes a reduction in staffing, with some staff currently on fixed term contracts to compete for appointment to a reduced number of positions designated as ongoing, with further fixed term employment proposed for two key areas of operation.[9]

[42]

It pointed to the long history of resolving industrial disputes by the Commission making industrial awards, and more recently by the FW Act providing for enterprise agreements, which require the parties to them to both agree and abide by the terms of the agreement.
It is therefore imperative, argued the HSU, that parties be held to the terms of their enterprise agreements.
The HSU noted that the dispute resolution clauses of the AHP and Salaried Agreements include a trade off in furtherance of the resolution of industrial disputes without disruption to the community.
It noted that the obligation in the AHP Agreement cl 12.4 to preserve the status quo until the dispute is resolved is balanced by the obligation in cl 12.11 not to take industrial action and to continue to work normally with the exception of an imminent risk to health and safety.
The HSU submitted that it has been a model industrial citizen by not taking industrial action, referring its dispute to the SAET and submitting to the dispute resolution processes of both the SAET and the enterprise agreements. It says it is entitled to the benefit of the status quo obligation in the enterprise agreements.
It noted that, the agreements having been made, it is not the task of the SAET to now arbitrate on whether the status quo provision ought to be in the agreements, or whether the maintenance of the status quo causes difficulty or undesirable consequences. For those reasons it distinguishes the task from the approach of a court to the balance of convenience in an inter partes litigation. It says it is not for the Tribunal to weigh up whether the prejudice of maintaining the status quo exceeds the prejudice of party being released from it.
The task for the SAET, says the HSU, is to make orders requiring adherence to the terms of an enterprise agreement.[12]
The next consideration referred to by the HSU is the scope of the status quo obligation, in the context of the respondent agreeing to maintain the status quo only for positions currently designated as AHP positions.
It referred to the dispute over what it says is a lack of compliance by DHW with the consultation obligations in the agreements. The HSU argued that the obligation to consult extends to the whole of the restructure, not just changes that were identified to the duties of the AHP employees. In particular, changes to the way other employees work may impact on AHP employees.
It referred to the definition of workplace change in cl 11.2 of the AHP Agreement, arguing that it is to be understood as referring to the whole of the change, not to separate parts of a change that would impact on particular employees.
It argued that the scope of the obligation was the whole of Phase 2 of the restructure, and did so by reference to the issues in dispute.
The first is the HSU dispute over the DHW use of fixed term employment contracts, both in relation to the impact on current fixed term employees and the proposal in the restructure to continue the use of fixed term employees. Those proposed fixed term appointments are not limited to AHP employees but if implemented would impact on them.
Secondly, the dispute includes the appropriateness of proposed classifications, which the HSU maintains includes AHP and employees in other roles.
Thirdly, the parties are in dispute over the overall sufficiency of the number of full time equivalent positions in administrative, AHP, nursing and medical scientist roles which has implications for workload and health and safety across all roles.
All this was submitted by the HSU to support a determination of the scope of the dispute and the consequent status quo obligation extending to the whole of the proposed restructure.[13]

[43]

The respondent submitted that the HSU application would benefit 33 FTE,[14] but would negatively impact 122 FTE.
Firstly, it argued that the compartmentalisation proposed by the respondent, to proceed with implementation of the restructure except for positions currently designated as AHP positions, would not impact the AHP workforce and consequently would not breach the status quo obligation in the AHP agreement.
Secondly it questioned whether the HSU dispute under the Salaried Agreement was genuine, and any status quo obligation enlivened in relation to employees other than AHP employees. If enlivened, the respondent submitted that there was a bona fide risk to health and safety such as to release the respondent from the obligation.
On the first point, impact on AHP employees, the respondent referred to the affidavit of Ms Sutton dated 22 January 2026, in which she deposes that there are 86 AHP FTE roles in the current structure, with 96 proposed in the restructure, and that workload planning had been undertaken which confirmed to DHW management that there would not be a negative impact on AHP workloads.[15] This was supplemented by reference to a workload impact document dated 27 October 2025 annexed to the affidavit of Ms Sutton.
Relying on this evidence, counsel for the respondent submitted: "Whilst there will be changes to team composition and skills mix, it is not anticipated that workload will be impacted."[16]
The respondent further argued that the applicant's evidence did not establish that there would be any impact on AHP's if a compartmentalised implementation were to proceed. In relation to a training role that was currently vacant due to the fixed term of ASO employees in that role expiring and not being renewed and AHP employees picking up that workload, as identified in the affidavit of Nathan Fielder dated 15 January 2026,[17] the respondent submitted that was the only evidence of any impact on AHP workloads if a compartmentalised restructure were to occur.
The respondent submitted that there was a DHW commitment to ensure there would be no significant impacts on AHP employee workloads, therefore there was no status quo obligation in relation to other roles proposed to be changed in the restructure.
In relation to the relevance of the Salaried Agreement to the status quo application, the respondent submitted that it was not relevant to the dispute with the HSU and as a consequence, there was no status quo obligation pursuant to that agreement and the EMR employees covered by it.
The respondent referred to the history of the dispute prior to the notification to the SAET. In particular, the respondent asserted that the relevant date on which the dispute notification was raised by the HSU pursuant to cl 35 of the Salaried Agreement was 21 May 2025. At that time, AHP employees were covered by the Salaried Agreement, along with administrative ASO and medical scientist (MeS) employees.
In relation to a submission by the HSU that the dispute pursuant to the Salaried Agreement continues in these proceedings, the respondent argued that when the AHP Agreement was approved on 11 August 2026, by its own terms it supersedes and replaces the Salaried Agreement for allied health professionals in the AHP stream.
Consequently, counsel for the respondent argued, the dispute pursuant to the Salaried Agreement ceased upon the transfer of the AHP employees to the AHP Agreement. She pointed to correspondence from the HSU as late as 12 December 2025 referring only to the AHP agreement, until on that date it referred to one of its members, Ms Hewitt, who was in an ASO role and covered by the Salaried Agreement. This the respondent submitted demonstrated that the HSU had no intention of the dispute notified under the Salaried Agreement remaining active following the approval of the AHP Agreement.
The Respondent asserted that "the only reason for introducing a new dispute in accordance with the salaried agreement was purely to disentitle the respondent from implementing the restructure for salaried employees."[18]
Consequently, it said, there is no dispute or no genuine dispute which would activate the cl 35 status quo provision in the Salaried Agreement.
In the alternative, the respondent argued that the actions or inactions of the HSU in progressing the dispute has caused DHW and the salaried employees significant prejudice by delaying the implementation of its proposed changes, and that the HSU is therefore "not entitled to the benefit of the status quo".
The respondent referred to the comments of DP Harrison of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in Australian Meat Industry Union v Sunnybrand Chickens where he said:

[45]

The respondent submitted that the HSU had failed to provide any substance to their dispute in relation to its ASO member Ms Hewitt, and that consequently there was no genuine dispute pursuant to the Salaried Agreement.
In relation to the medical scientist positions identified in the HSU Statement of Issues, the respondent submitted that there had been no concerns raised by the HSU specifically about those positions.
The third limb of the respondent's argument was that, if there is a genuine dispute pursuant to the Salaried Agreement, then the exception of a bona fide health and safety issue applied.
The respondent pointed to the affidavit of Ms Sutton and affidavits from Mr Ward, Ms Thomas and Ms Jellie as establishing that any further delay in implementing the restructure for non-AHP employees involved a bona fide health and safety issue.
It was asserted that the bona fide health and safety issue evidenced by these affidavits was an ongoing theme of uncertainty and impact on psychosocial health. The psychosocial health risk related to the delays in current employees on fixed term contracts being able to apply for ongoing roles, keeping them in a state of uncertainty as to their future employment and financial status.
The context of this submission was that, in the proposed restructure which the DHW wants to implement, those employees who are currently on fixed term contracts due to expire at the completion of the EMR Project would be required to apply for appointment to positions that are designated to be ongoing positions to be filled by merit selection.
The submission in relation to a psychosocial risk to non-AHP employees living with the uncertainty of fixed term contracts was that there was no benefit to them of the implementation of the restructure being delayed while the HSU dispute is resolved.[20]
I asked counsel for the respondent how a compartmentalised implementation would proceed if I determined in the respondent's favour.
This question was to inform my consideration of the scope of the dispute and the reach of any status quo order that I might make.[21]
Counsel referred me to the Human Resource Transition Principles attached to the affidavit of Mr Morris, and confirmed that this process would commence in relation to all positions proposed in Phase 2 of the restructure, except for proposed positions designated as AHP or which are proposed to be dual classified.[22]
In summary, after approval by the Chief Executive, DHW would commence a process of merit selection for ongoing roles in the administrative and nursing streams, with current roles continuing until those selections and appointments were confirmed. If commenced immediately, this process was expected to take at least several weeks.
In reply the HSU submitted in relation to the health and safety exception argued by the respondent, that the respondent's evidence was inadequate to invoke that exception.[23]
The HSU referred to the judgement of President Dolphin in Teague & Ors where he considered that same clause:

[50]

The dispute resolution clauses in both the AHP and Salaried Agreements are not unusual for enterprise agreements. The requirements for work to continue and the status quo to be preserved while parties resolve their dispute are commonplace.
However, the effect of these provisions fall to be determined in the context of both the dispute to which they apply, and the terms of the agreement as a whole.
As observed by the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in United Voice v Foster's Australia Limited t/a Carlton and United Breweries Limited, courts have treated status quo type provisions in industrial agreements in different ways.[25]
In CEPU v Theiss Pty Ltd the Court held that a status quo provision prevented the employer from implementing a roster change that was the subject of an industrial dispute, even though the agreement in question entitled the employer to change rostering arrangements.[26]
In AFMEPKIU v Ardmona Foods Ltd the relevant dispute resolution clause required the parties to "continue with normal operations while the process is being followed and the status quo as existed immediately before the dispute will remain while the dispute is being resolved."[27]
The dispute there was over whether a decision to transfer an employee to a different shift, an action which the award entitled the employer to take with 48 hours' notice, was stayed by the operation of the status quo clause once that decision was put into dispute. The Court held that in context, the reference to normal operations meant that work would continue without any exception or unusual action on either side. It held that a change of shift as allowed in the award was a normal operation and not restricted by the status quo provision.[28]
The Full Bench in United Voice, having considered these authorities, inclined to the view that the status quo provision under its consideration would, applying its ordinary meaning and read in isolation, operate to stay the implementation of the workplace change in dispute before it was implemented pending the completion of the various steps in the dispute resolution clause Appendix C. However, it held that specific provisions of Appendix I, in relation to staffing changes arising from technology or operational requirements, excluded the more general and temporary provisions of the dispute resolution clause in Appendix C.[29]
The Full Court of the Federal Court in Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited had occasion to consider on appeal whether a status quo provision in the relevant enterprise agreement operated to prevent employees from being stood down while the dispute resolution procedures were being followed. The Full Court agreed with the interpretation of the primary judge of the interaction between the dispute resolution clause 20.4 and cl 30.5.1 which prevented employees from being stood down if there was available work to be performed. It upheld the primary judge's finding that the requirement for work to continue pursuant to the dispute resolution clause only applied if there was work to be performed.[30]
The apparently varied approaches in these authorities are consistent in directing the task of interpreting the reach of a dispute resolution clause, as for any industrial instrument, by reference to the ordinary meaning of the words applied to the facts of the dispute and the whole of the industrial instrument in which they appear.
In this matter the scope of the dispute was itself in dispute, as was the question of whether it falls only within the AHP Agreement, or the Salaried Agreement as well.
The initial application of the HSU was filed on 19 November 2025 as an industrial dispute pursuant to s 7 of the FW Act. In response to the question of what assistance is sought from the SAET, the HSU ticked Conciliation. However, in the attachment setting out the grounds of the application, it sought orders.
In this initial application the HSU contended that the respondent had failed to adhere to the consultation obligations in cl 11 of the AHP Agreement in a number of ways, and confirmed that it was raising the dispute in accordance with cl 12 of the AHP Agreement.
As noted above in the background to the current application, the process of conciliation saw some progress in the dispute, such that I requested clarification of the disputed issues to be determined at the arbitration requested by the parties.
Whatever the course of the dispute prior to this point, I considered that the scope of the dispute for the purposes of the status quo obligation is comprised of the unresolved issues in dispute at the time of the order.

[55]

The requirement for consultation, while differently described, is relevantly the same in each of the Agreements. It is for consultation on proposed workplace change that will affect employees.
In this matter, DHW identified the scope of its proposed restructure as the conclusion of the work organisation it described as the EMR Project and the transition to a new structure for the ongoing development and operation of the EMR system under Business As Usual (BAU) principles. It divided this transition proposal into Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be implemented separately.
Having implemented Phase 1, it commenced consultation on Phase 2 with the PSA, the ANMF and the HSU in May 2025, when the Salaried Agreement applied to all the employees covered by those unions.
The initial Phase 2 proposal was sent to the HSU on 12 May 2025 followed by an all staff meeting the following day. Phase 2 involved restructuring of three existing areas described as Functional Units 2, 5 and 6, and leadership roles. The proposal retained the three Functional Units and the leadership roles with overall staffing reduced from 186 FTE to 174 FTE. These Functional Units all include employees in the administrative services, allied health, nursing and medical scientist streams.
On 27 October 2025 DHW proposed a revised Phase 2 restructure which proposed 137 FTE, down from the earlier proposal for 174 FTE, comprised of the following:
- 145.1. 1 FTE executive role;
- 145.2. 75 FTE ongoing roles;
- 145.3. 21 FTE operational clinical roles (fixed term);
- 145.4. 21 FTE innovation/optimisation roles (fixed term);
- 145.5. 19 FTE training roles (fixed term).
The proposed organisation chart included in this proposal shows all the position classifications and reporting lines for the proposed 137 FTE.[31]
I took this organisation chart as identifying the workplace change as proposed by DHW. It included proposed ongoing employment and fixed term employment on 12 month and 2 year contracts for employees across all the streams of administrative, nursing, medical scientist and allied health professional classifications, working in mostly interdisciplinary teams.
This workplace change as a single restructure proposal has been rightly recognised by DHW as affecting all the employees who work in the current structure which it proposes to replace with the new structure. Its approach to consulting the same proposal with the three relevant unions and in all staff communications confirms this. There are not separate restructure proposals for employees in different classification streams, nor for employees covered by different enterprise agreements.
That the restructure proposal has generated a dispute with the HSU separate from the other unions does not limit the scope of the workplace change that is the subject of the dispute.
Phase 2 proposes AHP employees working alongside and reporting to employees in other disciplines. The argument of the respondent that the dispute with the HSU is limited to AHP classified positions does not account for the way in which the proposed AHP positions are embedded within the restructure as proposed by DHW, nor how they are intended to interrelate with the other disciplines in the proposed Clinical Information Systems branch.
The submissions by the respondent that the HSU dispute was limited to the anticipated workload to be borne by AHP classified employees in the new structure did not take account of the range of issues identified by the HSU as still in dispute.
As the HSU Statement of Issues demonstrated, the dispute includes HSU concerns about aspects of the proposed new structure, and of the process of transition to whatever the final structure becomes. These issues do not lend themselves to the carve out that the respondent urged me to accept.
I found that the scope of the dispute includes the whole of the Phase 2 restructure proposed by DHW to transition from the completed roll out of the EMR system to a business as usual model of operation.
In my view, the scope of the dispute was the same whether it was live only under the AHP Agreement or included the Salaried Agreement.
I reject the argument of the respondent that the HSU had in effect manufactured a dispute in relation to a single ASO classified member in order to bring the Salaried Agreement back into the scope of the dispute for the purposes of the status quo order.
There was insufficient evidence for me to make such a factual finding. There is no criticism of the HSU for pursuing the interests of its members whether or not those members also have a right to membership of a different union.
The issues raised by the HSU and remaining in dispute with the Department extended beyond the confines of AHP workloads and terms of appointment. As noted above, the relationships between the different disciplines are an integral feature of Phase 2 restructure.
Having found that it is Phase 2 of the EMR restructure that is the workplace change subject to the dispute over consultation with the HSU, and that consultation obligation arises under the AHP Agreement, there was nothing required from the Salaried Agreement in order to determine the scope of the status quo obligation sought by the HSU.

[56]

The risk to health and safety exception to the status quo obligation in both the AHP Agreement and the Salaried Agreement is contained in brackets with the words "Unless a bona fide health and safety issue is involved". In the corollary obligation to continue work at cl 12.11 of the AHP Agreement and cl 35.8.2 of the Salaried Agreement it refers to "an imminent risk to health and safety". Bona fide health and safety issue needs to be read in the context of the imminent risk to health and safety that will relieve an employee of the ongoing obligation to perform work as normal or as directed, while the dispute is resolved.
The observations of President Dolphin in Teague suggest that the term bona fide health and safety issue is not a term of art, but a matter of assessing the risk on the facts of each case. He referred to issues of proximity and remoteness as potentially informing the assessment of risk.
In this matter, the intent of the corollary references in both enterprise agreements to the preservation of the status quo and the continuation of work are both subject to the same exception - that doing so would not be safe.
The evidence of the respondent's witnesses was to difficulty being experienced by some current employees on term contracts, of the uncertainty of waiting on the implementation of the proposed restructure for the opportunity to apply for merit selection to proposed ongoing positions.
I note that this uncertainty did not commence with the HSU dispute notification, nor is it entirely attributable to it. It is a feature of temporary employment and in the case of the EMR project, has been present at every stage of the development and implementation of the system given DHW has chosen to staff that project with employees on fixed term contracts, which had already been extended multiple times prior to the dispute with the HSU.
It also arises from the restructure proposal itself, which preferences opening the selection process above transferring fixed term employees to ongoing positions in the same or similar roles.
That the inherent uncertainty in this form of employment should continue for the life of the HSU dispute did not introduce any new health or safety risk particular to the dispute. Nor in my view did it elevate the risk above that which had been ongoing since the end of the EMR project came into view in early 2025, before the Phase 2 restructure proposal had commenced consultation. The relevant term contracts had been extended to 26 February 2026, with options available to the Department to manage or alleviate any uncertainty on an individual or collective basis while still observing the status quo during the dispute.
I noted that none of the Unions representing employees affected by the proposed restructure or status quo order had raised any health and safety concern with the Tribunal, despite the invitation and opportunity.
I considered that, against the backdrop of the EMR project being staffed by fixed term employment over its life from 2019, in excess of six years, and the accelerated hearing schedule provided to the parties for the resolution of the dispute, that any further delay was likely to be minimal and manageable without risking the health and safety of the employees involved.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (71 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)