Disciplined or dismissed as a WA health worker? The clock may already be running.

The Public Service Arbitrator and the Public Service Appeal Board were abolished on 31 January 2025, when Part IIA of the IR Act was deleted by the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (WA) (No. 43 of 2024) s 57 (IR Act, Part IIA note). Matters before them that had not been finally dealt with or withdrawn continue under the old Part (s 124(2), s 125).

The same Act deleted the HSA's own appeal provisions (ss 172 and 173) and inserted s 171 (No. 43 of 2024 s 141). Two provisions still refer to the deleted s 172: HSA s 153(1) and Health Services (General) Regulations 2019 r 13. They are out of date. Advice that sends you to the Public Service Appeal Board is out of date too.

Each of these is an "industrial matter" that can go to the WAIRC (HSA s 171(1)):

The Commission's jurisdiction over these is in IR Act s 36AA(2)(c). Not on the list: a suspension on full pay, a transfer that is not disciplinary action, improvement action, a withheld increment, and disciplinary action taken under s 150(3) after a conviction (s 171(1)(b) names only s 150(1)). Section 171 is also "subject to section 118", which takes a chief executive's employment out of the industrial jurisdiction.

1. You can refer the decision yourself (IR Act s 29(1)(j)). The union can refer it as an organisation in which you are eligible to be a member (s 29(1)(a)(ii)).
2. The referral must be made "no later than 28 days after the day on which the decision or finding is made" (s 29(2)(c)).
3. The Commission may accept a late referral "if the Commission considers that it would be unfair not to do so" (s 29(3)).

Since the 2024 amendments, the rules on lawyers depend on the kind of claim (IR Act s 31):

1. you may always appear in person or by an agent (s 31(1)(a)–(b)), and a union appears in person through its secretary or any officer (s 31(2));
2. a legal practitioner may appear without leave in a claim referred under s 29(1)(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j) or (l) (s 31(1)(c)(ii)). That includes a HSA s 171 referral (s 29(1)(j)) and an unfair dismissal claim (s 29(1)(c));
3. the same applies where the proceedings involve the hearing and determination of an application under s 44(7)(a)(iii) (s 31(1)(c)(ii));
4. in other proceedings, including a union referral under s 29(1)(a), a reclassification claim under s 29(1)(h) and a s 44 conference, a legal practitioner may appear only if all parties expressly consent, or if the Commission allows it because a question of law is raised or likely to be raised (s 31(1)(c)(iii)–(iv), (4)).

1. If you dispute that you committed the breach, the referral proceeds as a fresh (de novo) hearing, and "Procedural defects can be cured by the Commission's de novo hearing" (Richard Deturt v CEO, East Metropolitan Health Service [2026] WAIRC 00158 at [6]). In a dismissal the Commission asks whether you engaged in the conduct, whether it was a breach of discipline, and whether dismissal was harsh, oppressive or unfair (at [4]).
2. If the employer "failed to comply with a relevant policy instrument or the rules of procedural fairness", the Commission is not required to decide the matter on that basis alone: it may decide the matter on its merits, or quash the decision, send it back and direct the employer to restart its process at a stated stage (IR Act s 36AG(1)(a)–(b)). For HSA decisions the relevant policy instrument is the policy framework issued under HSA s 26 that is relevant to the decision (s 36AG(2)(a)); MP 0127/20 is a mandatory requirement under the Integrity Policy Framework.
3. Under the old regime the Appeal Board said procedural fairness issues had "no role to play" in a de novo appeal (Michelle Noble v North Metropolitan Health Service [2022] WAIRC 00661 at [61]). Since 2025 the Commission has also said that procedural defects can be cured by its de novo hearing (Deturt [2026] WAIRC 00158 at [6]); s 36AG(1) gives it the further choice to quash and remit where the employer failed to follow the policy framework or the rules of procedural fairness.
4. If the Commission finds a dismissal under s 171 was harsh, oppressive or unfair, its orders are those in s 23A (IR Act s 23(4)): reinstatement, re-employment, or, only if those would be impracticable, compensation of no more than 6 months' remuneration (s 23A).

Section 23(3)(d) of the IR Act stops the Commission regulating suspension, discipline or dismissal "if there is provision, however expressed, by or under any other Act for or in relation to a matter of that kind and there is provision, however expressed, by or under that other Act for an appeal in a matter of that kind" (IR Act s 23(3)(d)).

What the sources show, both ways:

1. the HSA's own appeal provisions were deleted on 31 January 2025, and s 171 now makes the listed decisions industrial matters for the Commission;
2. under the old regime, a casual security officer on the salaried staff was held to be a government officer whose unfair dismissal claim was barred, because his dismissal had a special appeal route (Michael Mirosevich v East Metropolitan Health Service [2018] WAIRC 00220 at [33], [35]). That special route no longer exists;
3. in 2025, after deciding that an employee had no standing to refer a full-pay suspension, the Commission said s 23(3)(d) created "a further difficulty" and that "the Commission cannot regulate the suspension from duty in employment of an employee in circumstances where a provision of another Act, here the HS Act, already does so and provides for an appeal in a matter of that kind" (Kenneth Lee v South Metropolitan Health Service [2025] WAIRC 00767 at [34]–[35]).

We found no published decision on whether a WA Health disciplinary dismissal can also be brought as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s 29(1)(c). Where a dismissal was disciplinary action, the route the IR Act names is s 29(1)(j), and its 28 days run from the decision.

1. Breach of public sector standards claims about a transfer, performance management, redeployment or termination are made to the employer first; if not resolved within 21 days they may be referred to the Commission within the next 28 days (IR Act ss 29(1)(l), 29(2)(d), 36AI–36AJ). Whether health service providers are "public sector bodies" for this purpose has not been decided.
2. Bullying at work, sexual harassment in connection with work and claims for contractual benefits can also be referred (s 29(1)(d)–(f)).

The St John of God agreement (AE527839) has no disciplinary procedure. It preserves the employer's right to dismiss without notice "for serious misconduct which justifies instant dismissal" (cl 11(4)). The fairness of a dismissal is then tested under the FW Act. Reclassification at St John of God is by "work value" under the agreement's classification clause (cl 55), with disputes under its dispute procedure (cl 53). Check your own agreement: the clauses differ by employer.

1. You are protected if you have completed the minimum employment period (6 months, or 12 months with a small business employer) and are covered by an award or agreement, or earn less than the high income threshold (FW Act s 382, s 383).
2. The application must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect (s 394(2)(a)), and later only in exceptional circumstances (s 394(3)).
3. The FWC considers, among other things, whether there was a valid reason related to your capacity or conduct, whether you were told of it and given an opportunity to respond, any unreasonable refusal to let you have a support person, and, for unsatisfactory performance, whether you were warned first (s 387).
4. A redundancy is genuine only if the job is no longer required, the consultation obligations were met, and redeployment within the employer or an associated entity would not have been reasonable (s 389). This matters where a laboratory or collection centre is consolidated or closed.

Two WA private hospital decisions show how strictly the limit is applied:

1. filing a different application first does not stop the clock unless it was in substance an unfair dismissal claim on the wrong form. A general protections application not about dismissal, which sought recompense for annual leave, was not, so an unfair dismissal claim filed 64 days late was dismissed (Belinda Weber v St John Of God Health Care Inc [2024] FWC 245 at [29], [43]);
2. misunderstanding the employer's letter, changing one's mind about fairness and using the wrong form were not exceptional circumstances (Elaine McGuire v St John of God Hospital [2022] FWC 26 at [14]–[18]).

A resignation given in the heat of the moment may be legally ineffective, and one forced by the employer can be a dismissal; the employee must say which is relied on (Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd v Shahin Tavassoli [2017] FWCFB 3941 at [47]–[48]).

1. An employer must not take adverse action, including dismissal, because you have or exercise a workplace right (FW Act s 340(1)). A workplace right includes being able to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to your employment (s 341(1)(c)). A scientist or technician dismissed after raising quality, accreditation or safety concerns with the employer may be able to use this route.
2. Adverse action because of a protected attribute such as disability or age is also prohibited (s 351).
3. If you allege the employer acted for a prohibited reason, it is presumed that it did unless the employer proves otherwise (s 361(1)).
4. A dismissal dispute goes to the FWC within 21 days after the dismissal took effect (s 365, s 366(1)). There is no minimum employment period.

See our pages on unfair dismissal and general protections.

The National Law registers only the professions it lists (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) s 5): Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice, Chinese medicine, chiropractic, dental, medical, medical radiation practice, midwifery, nursing, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, paramedicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology. For the WAH043 callings:

Using a protected title such as "physiotherapist", "pharmacist", "psychologist" or "radiographer" in a way that suggests registration, without being registered, is an offence (s 113).

Since 15 May 2024 WA has applied the national law with WA changes (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Application Act 2024). Notifications go to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) and your National Board. In WA the responsible tribunal is the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) (Application Act s 19).

1. Mandatory notification. Practitioners and employers must notify "notifiable conduct": practising while intoxicated, sexual misconduct in connection with practice, an impairment placing the public at substantial risk, or "a significant departure from accepted professional standards" (National Law ss 140–142). Anyone may make a voluntary notification (s 144). WA keeps a full exemption from mandatory notification for a practitioner who is treating another practitioner (s 141(4)(ca)).
2. Immediate action. A Board may suspend or impose conditions if it reasonably believes the practitioner poses a serious risk to persons and that it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety, or that the action is "otherwise in the public interest" (s 156(1)(a), (e)), after notice and a chance to make a submission (ss 156(2), 157).
3. Outcomes. A caution, undertakings or conditions (s 178); referral to a health panel or a performance and professional standards panel (ss 181, 182); or, for the most serious matters, referral to the SAT (s 193), which may reprimand, impose conditions, fine, suspend or cancel registration (s 196).
4. Medicines. A pharmacist's or other health professional's authority to deal with medicines can be conditioned, suspended or cancelled by the Department CEO, after notice and a chance to be heard, with review by the SAT (Medicines and Poisons Act 2014 ss 28, 29, 33).
5. Radiation. Imaging, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy staff and medical physicists also need licences or registration under the Radiation Safety Act 1975 (WA). This guide does not cover that regime.

A social worker, speech pathologist, dietitian, sonographer or scientist is not outside regulation. Under the Health and Disability Services (Complaints) Act 1995 (WA):

1. a "health care worker" is "an individual who provides a health service (whether or not the individual is a registered provider)" (s 3(1)). A worker who provides no health service, such as someone in a purely administrative role, is outside it;
2. regulations may prescribe codes of conduct for health care workers who are not registered, and for registered providers who provide health services unrelated to their registration (s 77A). HaDSCO states that its code applies from 27 July 2023, not retrospectively;
3. a complaint may allege that a health care worker failed to comply with a code of conduct or a prohibition order (s 25(1)(i)–(k)). A complaint about an incident more than 24 months old must be rejected unless good reason for the delay is shown (s 24);
4. while investigating, the Director may make an interim prohibition order for up to 12 weeks, banning or conditioning your health services, if the Director reasonably believes you breached the code (or you have been convicted of a prescribed offence) and the order is necessary to avoid a serious risk to a person or the public (s 52B);
5. after an investigation the Director may make a prohibition order, permanent or for a period, on the same kind of grounds (s 52H). Either order can be reviewed by the SAT (s 52P).

One allegation can run at the same time as employer discipline, an Ahpra notification (if registered) or a HaDSCO complaint (if not), action under the Medicines and Poisons Act, and a criminal process. Each has its own test, decision maker and time limits. What you say in one can be used in another.