Application by St Vincent’s Private Hospitals Ltd Trading AS St Vincent’s Private Hospital Melbourne
Citation: [2026] FWC 2348
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 36
What happened
St Vincent’s Private Hospitals Ltd sought approval for the St Vincent’s Health Australia (Queensland Private Hospitals) Health Professionals Enterprise Agreement 2025. The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union opposed the application. The dispute centred on whether casual employees were given an opportunity to vote on the agreement. St Vincent's only allowed casual employees who worked during the 'notional access period' (12-26 March 2026) to vote. Evidence showed that around 36 casual employees across three hospitals did not work during this period but were still employed and eligible to vote. Fifteen physiotherapists at one hospital, in particular, were excluded from voting.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed St Vincent’s application for approval of the enterprise agreement. The Commissioner found that St Vincent's failed to provide all eligible casual employees with a chance to vote. This failure violated section 181(1) of the Fair Work Act and meant the agreement wasn't genuinely agreed upon by all covered employees. The Commission noted the exclusion could have affected the outcome of the vote, which passed narrowly.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure that all eligible employees, including casuals, are given an opportunity to vote on enterprise agreements. Defining 'eligible' based solely on work during a specific period is problematic and risks excluding those who should be included. Employers need to carefully consider the employment status of all potential voters.
What it means for employees
Casual employees have the right to vote on enterprise agreements if they are employed at the time, regardless of whether they worked during a 'notional access period'. Employees should check their eligibility and raise concerns with their union or Fair Work Commission if excluded from voting.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2348.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →