The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The applicants, members of the respondent union, applied to the Commission under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) alleging that the respondent union failed to follow its rules regarding a number of claims.

The claims against the respondent include claims that the now former Secretary of the union was ineligible for the position under the union’s rules, that certain individuals were ineligible as union members, that the union did not comply with its rules in relation to Annual General Meetings, and that the union breached its rules governing payments of accounts.

The respondent union originally filed an application to dismiss these claims, contending that the applications amounted to grievances about the management of the union rather than issues of rules observance.  As a result of that application, one of the claims against the respondent was dismissed but the others remained to be determined.

Chief Commissioner Kenner considered each of the remaining five amended claims.  He determined that the former Secretary was eligible for the position of Secretary under rules; that the claim regarding certain individuals being ineligible as members was unfounded and was caused by a simple administrative error; and while the respondent had followed its rules regarding the claims about AGMs and the control of funds, those rules were either inadequate or unclear.  The Chief Commissioner accordingly made directions to the union to alter these rules.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant, a Vice President and Council member of the second respondent union, applied to the Commission seeking an order under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 challenging the appointment of the first respondent to the casual vacancy as Secretary of the second respondent. The applicant sought interim orders to remove the first respondent from his position and allow the Council to appoint an eligible member to the position until further order.

The first respondent, who previously served as Secretary of the union before leaving the role in 2022, was reappointed to the position on 30 August 2024, upon the resignation of the former Secretary, taking effect the same day. The applicant contended that the first respondent was ineligible for this appointment, citing the Union’s rules. The applicant also raised several allegations against the first respondent, including claims of bullying and harassment, and contentions concerning transparency in his dealings with the Council, nepotism, and potential tax liabilities.

The Registrar, an intervenor in this matter, supported the applicant’s submissions and filed evidence in support of the contention that under the Union’s rules, the first respondent was ineligible for appointment to the vacant Secretary position.

The first and second respondents opposed these contentions, asserting that the first respondent was eligible for the appointment under the Union rules as a financial member of the union, since first joining while in the nursing profession. They contended that the allegations pertaining to the first respondent’s conduct were unfounded, and that the removal of the first respondent from the position of Secretary would compromise upcoming enterprise bargaining negotiations.

Chief Commissioner Kenner considered the two requirements for the granting of interim orders, they being whether there were serious questions to be determined and where the balance of convenience lay.  The Chief Commissioner determined the matter weighed in favour of the applicant and the Registrar and made orders accordingly.

The decision can be read here. 

The order can be read here.

The appellant was dismissed from his role as a Level 2 Community Work Officer due to allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female staff. The appellant’s appointment was subject to a six-month probationary period, during which either party could terminate the contract with one week's notice. The respondent annulled the appellant's appointment during the probationary period, providing one week's pay in lieu of notice. The appellant contested the dismissal on the grounds of substantive and procedural fairness.

The appellant's appeal was filed four months late, which he attributed to researching his options and submitting applications in the wrong jurisdiction. The Public Service Appeal Board reviewed the Commission's records and found that the appellant had submitted an unfair dismissal application, which was not accepted due to jurisdictional issues, and that he then submitted the correct Form, which was also not accepted until he addressed deficiencies in his application. The respondent acknowledged that the appellant's first application had been filed within the 28-day period but maintained the delay was not justified and the appeal lacked merit due to the conditions around probationary employment. The Appeal Board accepted the respondent's submissions regarding the delay and the merits of the appeal.

The Appeal Board considered the appeal based on the evidence before it. The principles of probationary employment allowed the employer to terminate the employment during the probationary period if the employee was not meeting the required standards. The Appeal Board found that the concerns raised about the appellant’s conduct had been genuinely held, he had been adequately informed of the required standards, and he had received adequate support and training. The Appeal Board concluded that the decision to terminate the appellant's probationary employment was consistent with the purpose and principles of probationary employment.

Accordingly, the Appeal Board dismissed the appellant’s application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant was employed by the respondent as the Manager of a caravan park and accommodation, until he was advised that he was no longer the Manager, and his duties were reduced to taking bookings. The applicant claimed these changes were made unilaterally and amounted to a repudiation of his employment contract, leading to his unfair dismissal claim.

The respondent denied that the applicant was dismissed, asserting that he voluntarily resigned from his position.  Additionally, the respondent argued it was a national system employer under the Fair Work Act 2009, which meant the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim.

Commissioner Walkington determined that the respondent was not a trading corporation, as the respondent’s trading activities represent only a small portion of the respondent’s income, and as the overall nature of the activities of the organisation was not that of a trading corporation. The evidence showed that the respondent’s primary purpose is to assist and support community members through housing, education, employment, social welfare, and cultural initiatives. The Commissioner concluded that the activities of the respondent, including the receipt of rental payments and community contribution fees, did not constitute trading activities. As a result, Commissioner Walkington determined that the Commission did have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The decision can be read here.