The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated a review of the Commercial Travellers and Sales Representatives’ Award under s 40B of the Industrial Relations Act 1979. The proceedings were initiated to ensure the award does not contain wages less than the statutory minimum wage, to align the award with current employment standards prescribed by the Minimum Conditions of Employment 1993, and to remove discriminatory clauses and outdated provisions.

The Commission provided notice of its intention to vary the Award to UnionsWA, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, the Australian Resources and Energy Employers Association, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the named employer parties to the Award, and the United Workers Union as the union party to the Award. The Commission also sought further input from interested parties. The Minister confirmed her support for the proposed variations, with some further minor variations for accuracy and clarity.

Key amendments to the Award include the removal of the year from the title, grouping clauses under functional headings, updating definitions and references to outdated Acts, deleting obsolete clauses, and removing gendered language. The Award was also updated to reflect the current names of relevant unions who are party to the Award. Additionally, provisions for flexible working arrangements, termination of employment, wages, leave provisions – including family and domestic violence leave and parental leave, have been updated to align with current standards and legislation.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant, who was employed as a Graduate Community Safety Officer by the respondent, was terminated on the grounds of performance issues.  The applicant’s unfair dismissal claim maintained that her performance was satisfactory throughout her employment, the performance management process was not conducted fairly, and described the manner of her termination as excessive and humiliating.  The respondent argued that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to improve her performance through a fair performance management process which she failed to utilise. 

During the proceedings testimony given both by the applicant and her supervisors, detailed the nature of her work, challenges faced, as well as the dynamics of her relationship with her managers.  The respondent contended that the performance expectations of the applicant were based on those set out in the relevant industrial agreement, and that it was reasonable for her to be expected to adhere to specific attendance requirements and follow reasonable directions from her supervisors.  The evidence given suggested that while the applicant occasionally met performance expectations, there were significant periods where her performance did not improve. 

After a series of incidents including frequent lateness arriving to work, not following directions, and poor communication with supervisors, the applicant was notified that a Performance Improvement Process (PIP) would be implemented. The PIP identified specific improvement goals for the applicant and established a process period during which the applicant was expected to make progress on the plan and provide an opportunity to demonstrate improvement and commitment to the role.  The PIP also made provision for regular review and progress update meetings with the applicant’s supervisors.  During this period, evidence detailed that the applicant had not made sufficient progress, and the final PIP review recommended termination of the applicant’s employment.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino concluded that the applicant did not establish that her termination was harsh, oppressive, or unfair, and the respondent had valid reasons related to her performance for the dismissal.  The Senior Commissioner noted the respondent had engaged in extensive processes to address the applicant’s performance issues before the termination.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.

The Registrar in accordance with s 73 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), applied to the Commission in Court Session to cancel the registration of Community Employers WA, an organisation registered under s 54 of the Act.  The application was based on the respondent’s request to cancel its registration.

At the organisation’s Annual General Meeting, a significant majority of the members voted in favour of the motions to dissolve the organisation, meeting the required threshold.  There were several minor irregularities regarding the notice for the meeting and the process of considering the dissolution motions, however these did not invalidate the request for cancellation.  The Commission considered these issues but ultimately determined that they did not affect the validity of the application for cancellation.

The Commission in Court Session made orders cancelling the registration of the respondent organisation, with effect on from 9 May 2025.

The decision can be read here. 

The application made by the Registrar under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), sought orders for the establishment of an interim committee of management for the respondent union.  The application was based on concerns that the s71 certificate issued previously issued to the respondent was no longer effective, impacting the validity of the election of officeholders in the respondent organisation.  Under usual procedures, an interim committee is established to manage the organisation’s affairs and amend the rules if necessary.

Two key events led to the current matter.  First, was an alteration in rules to the federal branch of the respondent union, which abolished one of the two existing Assistant Secretary offices.  This change created an inconsistency between the respondent and its federal counterpart.  Second, by a Determination made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an administrator was subsequently appointed to manage the operations of the federal union, including the federal branch, which had the effect, amongst others, of temporarily divesting the officeholders of their powers in favour of the administrator.

The Registrar contended that due to these changes, the s 71 certificate was rendered ineffective, while emphasising the importance of maintaining democratic control and process within the organisation.  The respondent argued that the certificate remained valid and effective, asserting that the proper course would be to adjust its rules to reflect changes made to the federal counterpart, rather than establish an interim committee.

Consideration was also given to the Determination, under which the federal counterpart operates, highlighting that while the powers of officeholders are temporarily divested, their offices remain intact.

Chief Commissioner Kenner concluded that the s 71 certificate remains legally effective and that the respondent union can continue functioning without the need for an interim committee.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The application for altering the respondent's rules is to proceed as planned, reflecting the ongoing operation of the certificate despite the recent changes in the federal branch. 

The decision can be read here.