Application by Health Services Union (051V)
Citation: [2026] FWC 2824
What happened
The Health Services Union (HSU) applied for a protected action ballot order concerning employees of St Vincent’s Health Australia Ltd, operating several hospitals in New South Wales. The employer initially raised objections but later withdrew them after the HSU filed an amended application. The union stated it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer during bargaining. The ballot will be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission granted the Health Services Union’s application for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commissioner was satisfied that a notification time existed and all requirements of section 443(1) were met. Voting must close by August 11, 2026. A separate order (PR812552) has been issued. A compulsory conciliation conference will be scheduled with another Fair Work Commission member.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they engage in genuine bargaining processes when negotiating enterprise agreements. Withdrawing objections late in the process, as St Vincent’s Health Australia Ltd did, does not guarantee a favourable outcome and may still lead to a ballot order being issued.
What it means for employees
Employees represented by unions can pursue protected action ballots if negotiations for an enterprise agreement stall. This allows them to vote on whether to take industrial action to pressure the employer towards an agreement. The union must demonstrate genuine attempts at bargaining.
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/2026fwc2824.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 →