The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The Industrial Relations Act 1979 has been amended to provide the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) jurisdiction to deal with claims alleging a breach of a specified public sector standard from 1 July 2025.

A referral of a public sector standards claim to the Commission may be made by a person when:

• A breach of public sector standards claim has been made to a public sector body
  • in writing; and
  • in accordance with the public sector body’s procedures for breach of public sector standards claims and the Public Sector Management (Breaches of Public Sector Standards) Regulations 2005
• in relation to one of the following specified public sector standards:
  • the Employment Standard regarding a transfer decision only
  • the Grievance Resolution Standard
  • the Performance Management Standard
  • the Redeployment Standard
  • the Termination Standard
  • any other specified public sector standard that has been prescribed by regulations
• The claim has not been resolved by agreement or withdrawn
• The 21-day agency resolution period has passed

There is a 28-day time limit to make a referral to the Commission.

The Commission may deal with the referral by conciliation and/or arbitration, and may: order that the decision/action of the public sector body be quashed; order that the process for taking the action be recommenced from the beginning or from a specific stage; direct the public sector body to take specific steps in the recommenced process; or order the public sector body to take specific action. Orders for compensation are not available.

Parties can be legally represented, and decisions are appealable.

Breach of public sector standards claims regarding recruitment, selection, appointment, secondment and temporary deployment (acting) decisions will remain referrable only to the Public Sector Commissioner.

For more information, please see here.

As of 1 July 2025, the maximum salary level for lodging certain claims will increase to $204,600. An employee whose contract of employment provides for a salary greater than $204,600 cannot have the Commission decide whether they have been unfairly dismissed or have been denied a benefit to which they are entitled under their contract of employment.

The previous maximum salary level was $195,700.

More information may be found here.

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.