Gary Axford and Wentworth Area Health Service [1995] IRCA 621

Industrial Relations Court of Australia New South Wales District Registry NI 95/1971 Between: Gary AXFORD Applicant AND: Wentworth Area Health Service Respondent Place: Sydney Date: 18 October 1995 Before: Tomlinson JR REASONS FOR DECISION By application dated 24 April 1995 the applicant, Gary Axford, sought compensation and re-instatement as a result of a termination that occurred on 18 April 1995. At all times the applicant was represented by the Health Services Union of Australia and was employed by the respondent as a wardsperson at Nepean Hospital in the western suburbs of Sydney. At all times during the employment the applicant was an active member of his union and at the time of the termination he was president of the local sub-branch of the union the Health And Research Employees Association ("HREA"). Additionally the applicant had occupied the position of chairperson of the Enterprise Agreement Committee. The applicant is currently the Nepean Hospital delegate to the State Conference of his union.

In his statement marked exhibit 1 the applicant outlined the circumstances leading to his termination. Additionally the applicant told the court an employer/employee incentive plan known as Structural Efficiency Principles ("SEP") put into place in 1993 designed to improve the running of the hospital had fallen away in his opinion due to the lack of commitment on the part of management. Arising out of SEP the applicant told the court that staffing levels were inadequate to the point that patient care was jeopardised in that time was that only one wardsperson was allocated for the night shift for a 300 bed hospital. The applicant told the court management engaged consultants to assess the staffing level requirements of the respondent including wardspersons.

The applicant stated on 11 January 1995 he and other staff were requested by the Director of Core Services Ms Ruth Perrott to attend a staff meeting. At that meeting Ms Perrott stated that the respondent in light of budgetary constraints would not be replacing with casual employees wardspersons who fell sick. At the conclusion of that meeting the applicant then requested permission to then hold a meeting in order to speak to the wardspersons concerning staffing levels. In examination in chief the applicant stated the reason for holding the second meeting was that he wanted all staff members would know what was going on. In his evidence the applicant told the court he had previously been attempting to meet with management in an effort to discuss staffing levels, apparently without success. At that second meeting issues were discussed. According to the applicant: