Fair Work Commission|2025-12-16|Before: Commissioner P

Health Services Union v Healius Pathology Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3858 (16 December 2025)

s.229 - Bargaining order

Application for an interim bargaining order to prevent vote on an enterprise agreement - requirements of s.229(4) not met - appropriate to consider the application in the circumstances - requirements of s.230(3)(a) not met - application for interim bargaining order dismissed

[1] This decision concerns two applications that have been made under s.229 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for bargaining orders in relation to negotiations with Healius Pathology Pty Ltd trading as Laverty Pathology (Laverty) for a proposed enterprise agreement.

[2] Laverty has given notice to its employees that the vote to approve the proposed enterprise agreement will take place on 17 December 2025.

[3] On 5 December 2025, the Health Services Union (HSU) made an application (B2025/1807) seeking the following orders:

The Applicant requests the Commission to use its powers to order the employer to recommend good faith bargaining for the proposed Enterprise Agreement.

The Applicant requests the Commission to use its powers to order the employer to withhold opening the access period for the proposed enterprise agreement to be balloted till such time when all parties and/or their bargaining representatives have had the opportunity to hold a bargaining meeting.

[4] On 8 December 2025, the Phlebotomists Council of Australia (PCA) made an application (B2025/1813) seeking the following orders:

The Applicant requests the Commission to use its powers to order the Employer to bargain in good faith for the Proposed Enterprise Agreement.

The Applicant request the Commission to use it powers to order the Employer to withhold the intended ballot vote based on the proposed Enterprise Agreement until they have given genuine consideration and responded to the bargaining representatives' concerns.

The Applicant kindly requests the Commission to review the positions of all parties and advise on a path towards Commission supported mediation or Commission supported bargaining meetings to address the large number of outstanding issues.

Any other Orders the Commission deems suitable.

[5] In essence, both applications seek interim orders from the Commission preventing Laverty from conducting the vote on 17 December 2025.

[6] I determined that both matters would be heard together on 15 December 2025. Neither the HSU nor the PCA filed any witness statements in support of their applications. The matter proceeded by way of the parties making oral submissions which supplemented written submissions and documentary material that was annexed to the written submissions.

[7] On 10 April 2025, Laverty issued the Notice of Employee Representational Rights.

[8] On 6 May 2025, the parties commenced bargaining meetings. The HSU and Laverty presented their log of claims at a bargaining meeting on 22 May 2025.

[9] On 3 June 2025, the PCA presented its log of claims at a bargaining meeting.

[10] In the period up to 12 August 2025, there were 8 bargaining meetings. The details of what occurred during those meetings is scant but is sufficient to note that the parties considered the various logs of claims and adjusted their positions over the course of those meetings notwithstanding that agreement was not reached.

[11] On 14 October 2025, a further bargaining meeting was held during which Laverty advised that further amendments had been made to the proposed agreement including the wage offer - although both the HSU and the PCA contend that there was some confusion about the wage offer.

[12] On 30 October 2025, Laverty informed employees that a vote to approve the proposed agreement will take place from 10 to 12 November 2025. The employees did not approve the proposed agreement.

[13] On or about 3 December 2025, Laverty informed the HSU and the PCA that it had undertaken a survey of its employees and would be putting an amended proposed agreement to a vote and provided the details of the amended proposed agreement. Laverty sought the views of the HSU and the PCA in relation to the amended proposed agreement by 5 December 2025.

[14] On or about 8 December 2025, Laverty informed employees of the amended proposed agreement and that the vote to approve the amended proposed agreement will take place on 17 December 2025.

[15] Section 589 of the FW Act provides as follows:

(1) FWA may make decisions as to how, when and where a matter is to be dealt with.

(2) FWA may make an interim decision in relation to a matter before it.

(4) This section does not limit FWA's power to make decisions.

[16] Section 229 of the FW Act provides as follows:

(1) A bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement may apply to the FWC for an order (a bargaining order ) under section 230 in relation to the agreement.

Note: See also section 255A (limitations relating to greenfields agreements).

(2) An application for a bargaining order must not be made in relation to a proposed multi - enterprise agreement unless a supported bargaining authorisation or single interest employer authorisation is in operation in relation to the agreement.

(3) The application may only be made at whichever of the following times applies:

(a) if one or more enterprise agreements apply to an employee, or employees, who will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement:

(i) not more than 90 days before the nominal expiry date of the enterprise agreement, or the latest nominal expiry date of those enterprise agreements (as the case may be); or

(ii) after an employer that will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement has requested under subsection 181(1) that employees approve the agreement, but before the agreement is so approved;

Note: An employer that is required to give a notice of employee representational rights under subsection 173(1) cannot request employees to approve the agreement under subsection 181(1) until 21 days after the last notice is given.

(4) The bargaining representative may only apply for the bargaining order if the bargaining representative:

(i) one or more of the bargaining representatives for the agreement have not met, or are not meeting, the good faith bargaining requirements; or

(ii) the bargaining process is not proceeding efficiently or fairly because there are multiple bargaining representatives for the agreement; and

(b) has given a written notice setting out those concerns to the relevant bargaining representatives; and

(d) considers that the relevant bargaining representatives have not responded appropriately to those concerns.

Non - compliance with notice requirements may be permitted

(5) The FWC may consider the application even if it does not comply with paragraph (4)(b) or (c) if the FWC is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.

[17] Section 230 of the FW Act provides as follows:

(1) FWA may make a bargaining order under this section in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

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

(b) the requirements of this section are met in relation to the agreement; and

Agreement to bargain or certain instruments in operation

(2) FWA must be satisfied in all cases that one of the following applies:

(a) the employer or employers have agreed to bargain, or have initiated bargaining, for the agreement;

(b) a majority support determination in relation to the agreement is in operation;

(d) all of the employers are specified in a low‑paid authorisation that is in operation in relation to the agreement.

(i) one or more of the relevant bargaining representatives for the agreement have not met, or are not meeting, the good faith bargaining requirements; or

(ii) the bargaining process is not proceeding efficiently or fairly because there are multiple bargaining representatives for the agreement; and

(b) that the applicant has complied with the requirements of subsection 229 (4) (which deals with notifying relevant bargaining representatives of concerns), unless subsection 229 (5) permitted the applicant to make the application without complying with those requirements.

Bargaining order must be in accordance with section 231

(4) The bargaining order must be in accordance with section 231 (which deals with what a bargaining order must specify).

[18] Section 228 of the FW Act provides as follows:

(1) The following are the good faith bargaining requirements that a bargaining representative for a proposed enterprise agreement must meet:

(a) attending, and participating in, meetings at reasonable times;

(b) disclosing relevant information (other than confidential or commercially sensitive information) in a timely manner;

(d) giving genuine consideration to the proposals of other bargaining representatives for the agreement, and giving reasons for the bargaining representative's responses to those proposals;

(e) refraining from capricious or unfair conduct that undermines freedom of association or collective bargaining;

(f) recognising and bargaining with the other bargaining representatives for the agreement.

Note: See also section 255A (limitations relating to greenfields agreements).

(2) The good faith bargaining requirements do not require:

(a) a bargaining representative to make concessions during bargaining for the agreement; or

(b) a bargaining representative to reach agreement on the terms that are to be included in the agreement.

[19] In Wills v Grant, Marley & The Government of New South Wales, Sydney Trains and Another [2020] FWCFB 4514 (Wills) the Full Bench set out the correct approach for interim orders where a requisite state of satisfaction must be reached. The Full Bench generally agreed with the reasoning of Colman DP in Mayson v Mylan Health Pty Ltd[1]stating:

[33] For the reasons which follow we reject the Appellant's contention that an interim anti-bullying order may be issued based only on a prima facie case, or serious question to be determined, and the balance of convenience favouring the interim relief sought. In our view s.789FF allows the Commission to make an anti-bullying order, including an interim order, only if it is 'satisfied' that a worker has been bullied at work and that there is a risk that the bullying will continue.

[34] Contrary to the Appellant's submission we generally agree with the analysis of Deputy President Colman in Mayson. In particular:

s.589(2) states that the Commission 'may make an interim decision in relation to a matter before it.' It is not an independent source of power to issue interim orders because absent a particular 'matter before it', the Commission has no power to do anything at all under s.589(2). To the extent that it might be contended that s.589(2) can be used in respect of any 'dispute' that might be referred to the Commission, s.595 makes clear that the Commission may deal with a dispute 'only if (it) is expressly authorised to do so under or in accordance with another provision of this Act.' Section 589(2) is not such a provision.

The 'matter' now before the Commission, for the purpose of s.589(2), is an application made under s.789FC. That application alleges that a worker has been bullied at work. It seeks an order under s.789FF to prevent a worker from being bullied by an individual or group. Any order made in relation to this application will be an order under s.789FF and the relevant requirements of that section must be satisfied.

Section 789FF confers jurisdiction on the Commission to make an anti-bullying order if, and only if, it is satisfied that a worker has been bullied at work, and that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work. In order to be satisfied that a worker has been bullied at work, the Commission would first need to make factual findings about what has occurred and assess whether the behaviour of relevant persons may be characterised as falling within the definition of 'bullied at work' in s.789FD(1). This would require the Commission to make a finding that the impugned conduct was repeated and also unreasonable, that the conduct was towards a worker, and that it created a risk to health and safety.

Section 789FF deals directly and in general terms with the Commission's powers to make orders in relation to applications made under s.789FC. The Commission may make 'any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent the worker from being bullied at work.' Even if s.589(2) did not exist, the Commission could make an interim (temporary) order under s.789FF. But it cannot issue any order at all unless the relevant preconditions are met.

A conclusion that an applicant for an anti-bullying order has established an arguable case or serious issue to be determined falls short of the state of satisfaction required by s.789FF. One cannot be satisfied on an arguable basis. One is either satisfied, or not satisfied, that a certain state of affairs exists.

Section 589(2), a general provision which must relate to a 'matter before the Commission', would then have the effect of disengaging express requirements of the substantive provision and source of power - that the Commission be satisfied of the relevant matters. The applicant's argument reads s.789FF as requiring the Commission's satisfaction of these matters, unless an application is made for interim anti-bullying orders. This is not a sensible or coherent interpretation of the relevant provisions.

The Commission, unlike a court, has no inherent jurisdiction. It can only do what the Act allows, and it must do what the Act requires.

There is nothing to prevent the Commission from issuing interim decisions in an anti-bullying matter, consequent upon having reached the required state of satisfaction as to the matters set out in s.789FF(1). For example, the Commission might be satisfied that a worker has been bullied at work and that there is a risk of continued bullying but require further submissions from the parties as to the final orders; an interim order might be made 'in the interim' on the material before the Commission at that time. But what the Commission cannot do is issue an order under s.789FF, without being satisfied that a worker has been subjected to bullying at work, and that there is a risk that the bullying will continue. To make an order in such circumstances would be beyond power.

The fact that an anti-bullying order under s.789FF can only be issued once the Commission reaches the requisite state of satisfaction about the relevant matters does not mean that the Commission cannot deal with anti-bullying matters quickly. The Commission may be able to conduct an expedited hearing, swiftly decide whether it is satisfied of the relevant matters in s.789FF and if so whether to issue an order. The Commission might decide to issue an interim (temporary) order, pending further deliberations on the appropriate framing of a final order, which might require further evidence. Or an expedited hearing might lead directly and quickly to the issuing of final orders.

[20] Although Wills was a matter concerning an application for an order to stop bullying, I am of the view that the approach adopted by the Full Bench is apposite and therefore consider it to be the correct approach to this matter. Accordingly, I can only make a bargaining order pursuant to s.229 of the FW Act, either as an interim order or as final order, if I reach the requisite state of satisfaction as to the matters set out in s.230 of the FW Act.

[21] Furthermore, in the context of an application for an 'interim' bargaining order, the assessment of the requisite state of satisfaction is undertaken by reference to the material before the Commission at that time.[2]

[22] For the purposes of s.229(4) of the FW Act, the HSU submits that it provided notice to Laverty at 4:33pm on 4 December 2025. The notice states:

Further to the email from my colleague, Andrei Bilic dated 3 December 2025, HSU confirms that the proposal currently circulated is not endorsed by our members at Laverty Pathology.

We note that despite Laverty's claims to engage in discussions and consider non-financial claims made during the mandatory conciliation in the FWC on 1st December, Laverty's position is that they are proceeding with opening the access period on Monday, 8th December 2025 with the Enterprise Agreement in its current form to be balloted on 17th December. This constitutes breach of good faith bargaining as outlined in s228 and s229 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Additionally, we support the concerns raised by the Pathology Council of Australia regarding Laverty proceeding unilaterally to an Access Period and ballot despite the outstanding issues and the non-endorsement of the current proposed EBA by majority of the employees.

Given the above, we agree with PCA that the most appropriate path forward is for Laverty to recommence bargaining and engage with all Employee Bargaining Representatives in good faith, as required under the Fair Work Act.

Failing this, HSU will have no alternative but to seek the intervention of the Fair Work Commission.

[23] The HSU submitted that Laverty's decision to put the amended proposed agreement to a vote rather than engage in further bargaining meetings in circumstances where all of the bargaining representatives do not endorse the amended proposed agreement is the conduct or concern that Laverty is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements.

[24] The HSU further submitted it has not had sufficient time to consult with its members and provide a response to the amended proposed agreement.

[25] Laverty submits that the HSU has not complied with the notice requirements in s.229(4)(b) and (c) of the FW Act, that the Commission should not otherwise consider the HSU Application in light of its non-compliance with s.229(4), and that the HSU application should be dismissed.

[26] In the alternative, Laverty submits that the HSU has not adduced any evidence to support its allegation that Laverty is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements. Laverty submitted that there is no requirement for the agreement of all bargaining representatives to be obtained before a proposed agreement can be put to a ballot of employees and that the circumstances of this matter were analogous to those in the decision of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union - Mining and Energy Division Queensland District Branch v Workpac Pty Ltd.[3]

[27] The HSU Application raises two issues: the notice requirements and the concerns about whether Laverty is meeting the good faith bargaining requirements.

[28] In relation to the notice requirements, on a fair reading of the notification the HSU's concern is that Laverty is proceeding to a vote in circumstances where it has not agreed or endorsed the amended proposed agreement. This is sufficient to satisfy s.229(4)(b). However, the notification does not provide Laverty with a reasonable time to respond to that concern as required under s.229(4)(c), noting that the HSU application was filed approximately 24 hours after the notification. That is sufficient to dismiss the HSU application.

[29] However, if I am wrong in relation to my findings on the notification, and in circumstances where an interim order to prevent a vote going ahead the matter is sought and the matter is proceeding expeditiously, it is appropriate to otherwise consider the HSU application.[4]

[30] The HSU contends that Laverty's decision to proceed to put the amended proposed agreement to a vote without its endorsement and/or in circumstances where it has not had sufficient time to consider the terms of the amended proposed agreement is contrary to the good faith bargaining requirements.

[31] I do not accept either of these contentions for the following reasons.

[32] First, the notification from the HSU clearly states that the amended proposed agreement is not endorsed by HSU members. The HSU could only have made that statement if it was able to have obtained sufficient instructions from its membership cohort having regard to the terms of the amended proposed agreement.

[33] Second, the good faith bargaining requirements do not require a bargaining representative to make concessions during bargaining for an agreement, or that the bargaining representatives reach agreement on the terms that are to be included in the proposed agreement.

[34] Third, although there may be circumstances in which the conduct of a ballot without the agreement of other bargaining representatives constitutes a breach of the good faith bargaining requirements, there is no absolute requirement for the agreement of the bargaining representatives prior to the conduct of a vote.[5] In this matter, the parties have met at least 9 times in 6 months. There has been movement in the respective positions. Laverty put a proposed agreement to a vote which was not approved by the employees. Following that, Laverty has surveyed its employees and is putting an amended proposed agreement to a vote. Laverty sent detailed correspondence to the bargaining representatives setting out the changes and inviting their feedback. Having regard to those circumstances, I do not consider Laverty is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements. Of course, it is open to the HSU to encourage its membership cohort to reject the amended proposed agreement. If the employees do not approve the amended proposed agreement, it is open for further bargaining meetings to take place. But that does not mean that Laverty's decision to put its latest position to a vote without the endorsement of the HSU is contrary to the good faith bargaining requirements.

[35] I am not satisfied that Laverty has not met, or is not meeting, the good faith bargaining requirements. Therefore, the requirement in s.230(3)(a)(i) of the FW Act has not been met. In those circumstances, I do not have any power to make an interim order preventing the vote going ahead.

[36] Accordingly, the HSU Application for an interim order is dismissed. The HSU Application will be listed for further mention and programming on a date to be advised.

[37] For the purposes of s.229(4) of the FW Act, the PCA submits that it provided notice to Laverty at 1:23pm on 4 December 2025. The notice states:

The Phlebotomists Council of Australia (PCA) confirms that the proposal currently circulated is not endorsed by our members at Laverty Pathology.

Further, we raise serious concerns that the employer's decision to issue notice of a second Access Period commencing Monday, 8 December, and to proceed to a ballot on Wednesday, 17 December, constitutes a breach of the Good Faith Bargaining Requirements under sections 228-229 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Only one day ago, the employer advised the bargaining representatives:

"However, we will not communicate to all employees to the effect that the changes in the 2025 EA are all with the agreement of the bargaining representatives unless you provide your endorsement of the proposed replacement enterprise agreement by 12pm Friday 5 December 2025."

It is therefore inconsistent and unreasonable for the employer to now proceed unilaterally to an Access Period and ballot, particularly when:

1. The HSU has formally requested additional time to undertake a democratic vote of its members; and

2. All Employee Bargaining Representatives have rejected the proposal in its current form.

Additionally, we place on record our concern that:

The PCA did not receive any formal notice that employees had voted down the initial proposed agreement.
The PCA was not advised of the PABO hearing, contrary to the Commission's Directions and Orders requiring that all bargaining representatives be notified.

We further note that including the mandatory Award wage increase applied in July 2025 (to meet legislative obligations ensuring no employee is paid below Award minimums) within the enterprise agreement wage proposal is not transparent and may mislead employees as to the true value of the offer. Should Laverty seek approval of this agreement, we will formally object on this basis.

Given the above, we advise that the most appropriate path forward is for Laverty to return to the bargaining table and engage with all Employee Bargaining Representatives in good faith, as required under the Fair Work Act.

Failing this, we will have no alternative but to seek the intervention of the Fair Work Commission.

We request immediate confirmation of Laverty's intentions.

[38] Similarly to the HSU, the PCA submitted that Laverty's decision to put the amended proposed agreement to a vote rather than engage in further bargaining meetings in circumstances where all of the bargaining representatives do not endorse the amended proposed agreement is the conduct or concern that Laverty is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements. The PCA submitted that the purpose of bargaining is to achieve an agreement that meets the better off overall test and that has the support of the bargaining representatives.

[39] The PCA also expressed concern that Laverty's decision to proceed to a vote when the HSU had requested additional time to consult its membership cohort was conduct that did not meet the good faith bargaining requirements.

[40] The PCA submitted that Laverty has engaged in unfair conduct by withholding accurate and complete information from the bargaining representatives in relation to the classification structure and wage rates.

[41] Laverty submits that it is unclear whether the PCA has complied with the notice requirements in s.229(4)(b) and (c) of the FW Act. Laverty submits that if that is the case, the Commission should dismiss the matter.

[42] Laverty submits that the substantive complaint of the PCA is simply that the PCA does not agree with all of the content of the amended proposed agreement and they hold the mistaken view that the amended proposed agreement cannot be put to a vote until it is endorsed by the bargaining representatives.

[43] Laverty submits that there is no evidence to support the PCA's submission that Laverty has withheld accurate or complete information about the classification structure or proposed wage rates, nor is there any evidence that Laverty has failed to respond to any claim made by the PCA or its members.

[44] In reply, the PCA conceded that there does not seem to be obvious breaches of the good faith bargaining requirements but submitted that Laverty's conduct overall did not meet the good faith bargaining requirements. The PCA further submitted that the wage offer in the amended proposed agreement has not been made clear.

[45] Similarly to the HSU Application, two issues arise in relation to the PCA Application: whether the PCA has complied with the notice requirements and the concerns about whether Laverty is meeting the good faith bargaining requirements.

[46] In relation to the notice requirements, the PCA's concern is that Laverty is proceeding to a vote in circumstances where it has not agreed or endorsed the amended proposed agreement. This is sufficient to satisfy s.229(4)(b). I am also satisfied that the PCA provided Laverty with a reasonable time to respond to its concern. I accept that the PCA did not stipulate a specific time. However, the notification sought an immediate response and PCA did not file the application until four days later.

[47] If I am wrong in relation to my findings on the notification, and the notification does not comply with s.229(4)(c), then it is appropriate to otherwise consider the PCA Application in circumstances where an interim order to prevent a vote going ahead the matter is sought and the matter is proceeding expeditiously.[6]

[48] The PCA contends that Laverty's decision to proceed to put the amended proposed agreement to a vote without its endorsement is contrary to the good faith bargaining requirements. The PCA also contends that the vote should not go ahead in circumstances where a bargaining representative has requested additional time to review the proposed agreement.

[49] I do not accept either of these contentions for the following reasons.

[50] First, the good faith bargaining requirements do not require a bargaining representative to make concessions during bargaining for an agreement, or that the bargaining representatives reach agreement on the terms that are to be included in the proposed agreement.

[51] Second, although there may be circumstances in which the conduct of a ballot without the agreement of other bargaining representatives constitutes a breach of the good faith bargaining requirements, there is no absolute requirement for the agreement of the bargaining representatives prior to the conduct of a vote.[7] In this matter, the parties have met at least 9 times in 6 months. There has been movement in the respective positions. Laverty put a proposed agreement to a vote which was not approved by the employees. Following that, Laverty has surveyed its employees and is putting an amended proposed agreement to a vote. Laverty sent detailed correspondence to the bargaining representatives setting out the changes and inviting their feedback. Having regard to those circumstances, I do not consider Laverty is not meeting the good faith bargaining requirements. Of course, it is open to the PCA to encourage its membership cohort to reject the amended proposed agreement. If the employees do not approve the amended proposed agreement, it is open for further bargaining meetings to take place. But that does not mean that Laverty's decision to put its latest position to a vote without the endorsement of the PCA is contrary to the good faith bargaining requirements.

[52] Third, I accept that putting a proposed agreement to a vote before a bargaining representative has had a sufficient opportunity to consider its terms and provide any response may be contrary to the good faith bargaining requirements. However, it is clear in this case that both the PCA and the HSU have had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed amended agreement and advise Laverty that their respective member cohorts do not endorse or agree to the terms.

[53] In relation to the PCA's contention that Laverty has withheld accurate and complete information, there is no evidence to support that. All parties had the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective positions. The allegation that a party or bargaining representative is withholding information during the course of bargaining is a serious allegation and should be supported by direct evidence. To the extent that the PCA contends the wage offer in the amended proposed agreement is unclear, Laverty has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to explain the terms of the amended proposed agreement, and the effect of those terms, to employees employed at the time who will be covered by it.

[54] Having regard to the matters set out above, I am not satisfied that Laverty has not met, or is not meeting, the good faith bargaining requirements. Therefore, the requirement in s.230(3)(a)(i) of the FW Act has not been met. In those circumstances, I do not have any power to make an interim order preventing the vote going ahead.

[55] Accordingly, the PCA Application for an interim order is dismissed. The PCA Application will be listed for further mention and programming on a date to be advised.

[56] I am not satisfied that Laverty has not met, or is not meeting, the good faith bargaining requirements. Therefore, the requirement in s.230(3)(a)(i) of the FW Act has not been met. In those circumstances, I do not have any power to make the interim orders sought by the HSU and the PCA. The applications will be listed together for further mention and programming on a date to be advised.

R Luxton for The Phlebotomists Council of Australia.

B Gee and A Sullivan, solicitors and employer bargaining representatives for Healius Pathology Pty Ltd

[5] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Mining and Energy Division v Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 3510 (Tahmoor Coal) at [30].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Health Services Union v Healius Pathology Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3858

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (147 paragraphs)

Health Services Union v Healius Pathology Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3858 (16 December 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)