The judge explodes doctors for challenging strike orders
A resolution between psychiatrists in war and the government of the new South Wales will be derailed if thousands of doctors get off the work for three days next week, after a judge skipped the union of doctors for challenging his orders.
The NSW Health and the Federation of Australian savory medical officers (ASMOF NSW) were called to an urgent hearing at the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) Thursday after the trade union leaders voted Go ahead with their first strike in almost 30 years.
Their decision, Tuesday evening late, challenged the orders of the justice of the acting Peter Kite to cancel the strike e refrain from any industrial action for three months. Asmof provides that a significant part of its 9000 members participate in the strike. So far, the staff of 32 hospitals has been recorded for strike, covering specialties including surgery, anesthetics, emergency and intensive care.
The NSW Health has said that it will manage the impacts on the emergency departments to maintain patient safety.
Doctors ask for a salary increase up to 30 % in an unspecified period to combine wages in other states. The government offered 10.5 percent in three years.
The Commission was to listen to tests of the experts on Friday from the Union and the State Government in their separate dispute on mass resignation of about 200 psychiatrists of the public sector.
But Kite on Thursday asked the union lawyers for that arbitration to continue while the doctors continued to challenge the orders not to hit.
The lawyer of the union Thomas Dixon said that the strikes were not designed to support “the statements of psychiatrists, but to advance the concerns of the doctors” more generally “.
“Why does it matter why are you hitting?” Kite asked to Dixon, adding that it was a requirement pursuant to the state’s industrial relations law to comply with the orders of the Commission.
Dixon said that, while the members of the Union, psychiatrists had no control over the actions by the wider belonging and would be “affected by a decision to which they could oppose”.
