The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

Practice Note 1 of 2025 is issued by The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission for the purpose of informing employees, employers and relevant registered organisations of the process required to be undertaken when seeking the reclassification of a position within the public sector.

In accordance with s 113(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 and reg 39(3) of the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005, Practice Note 1 of 2025 is effective 14 days after the date of its publication in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette, being 26 February 2025 and remains in force until such time as it is replaced.

Please click here to view the Practice Note.

All the Commission's Practice Notes can be found here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings seeking declarations under ss 71(2) and (4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (the Act) that the Rules of the applicant and its federal counterpart regarding qualifications of persons for membership and offices are deemed to be the same and sought a fresh s 71(5) certificate from the Registrar.

These proceedings follow a lengthy series of other matters that commenced in 2018 when the applicant union altered its rules in relation to its name and subsequently applied for a fresh s71 certificate.   In those proceedings, the Full Bench raised some concerns as to whether the office of Assistant Secretary in the applicant and of Branch Assistant Secretary in its federal counterpart could be considered to be corresponding offices. Following this, orders were made appointing an interim committee of management for the applicant.

In these proceedings, the Commission in Court Session examined the functions and powers of the offices and the similarity of their rules to determine if there was a sufficient degree of similarity between the respective offices and rules. The Commission in Court Session determined that while there were some minor differences in exclusions, persons eligible for membership in the applicant union would also be eligible for membership in its federal counterpart. Comparing the functions and powers of the respective offices, the Commission was satisfied that for each office in the applicant union, there was a corresponding office in the federal branch with sufficiently similar powers and duties. The Commission in Court Session was satisfied that the relevant conditions were met under ss 71(2) and (4) of the Act and made declarations accordingly.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, who had been employed as a prison officer by the respondent, appealed the decision of the Full Bench to the Industrial Appeal Court, seeking reinstatement after her dismissal for failure to comply with a direction to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide evidence of her vaccination.

In her original claim before the Commission, the appellant contended that she had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent for failure to comply with the vaccination direction. Having found that another employee had been reprimanded but not dismissed for non-compliance with the direction to be vaccinated, Senior Commissioner Cosentino found that while there was valid reason for the appellant’s dismissal, when compared to the other employee, the respondent’s treatment of the appellant was unfair, and ordered that the appellant be reinstated to her position.

The respondent appealed this decision to the Full Bench of the Commission, contending that the matter of the other employee’s reprimand was not a relevant comparator. Finding that the disciplinary outcome for the other employee occurred several months after the appellant’s dismissal, and that each employee was employed in a materially different roles requiring different working circumstances and subject to different statutory frameworks, the Full Bench determined that the respondent’s claim had been made out and overturned the decision of the Senior Commissioner.

The appellant’s appeal to the Industrial Appeal Court was on the grounds that the Full Bench erred in law by finding that the other employee’s disciplinary outcome was not a suitable comparator to her case, raising the issue of the proper construction of s 26(1)(a) and s 26(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (IR Act). The Court found that in this matter, the proper construction and application of s 26(1) of the IR Act was not in issue before the Full Bench. The Court determined that the Full Bench applied the well-established legal test for ascertaining if an employee’s dismissal was harsh, oppressive, or unfair, and applied well-established legal principle in determining the relevant facts in relation to the alleged disparity between the treatment of the appellant and other disciplined employee. Finding that the Full Bench had not erred in law, the Industrial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Full Bench.

The decision can be read here. 

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated proceedings to vary the Performers Live Award (WA) 1993 pursuant to s 40B of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (IR Act). The proceedings were initiated to ensure that the award does not contain wages that are less than statutory minimum wages, to remove obsolete, out of date and discriminatory provisions, and to ensure the award did not contain provisions less favourable than the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993 (MCE Act).

The award had not been varied since at least 1999 and contained a number of outdated and obsolete 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 Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance of Western Australia (Union of Employees) (MEAA) and the employer respondents named in the award. The Commission sought input from interested parties and were provided feedback by a representative of the Minister.

Through proceedings, an issue arose regarding whether rates of pay in the Award that were below the statutory minimum rate should be corrected by a variation only to the rate of pay that was below the statutory minimum by increasing it to the minimum, or by a variation to reduce the ordinary hours of work from 40 hours per week to 38 hours per week, which would have the effect that most rates would be increased by 5%. The Minister and MEAA each submitted that the latter variation be made, to which no parties object. Senior Commissioner Cosentino determined that the variation to ordinary hours should be made and made orders accordingly.

Further variations to the award included changes to clauses for bereavement and personal leave that may have been discriminatory, the addition of new clauses for family and domestic violence leave and parental leave, updates to clauses pertaining to the manner of payment, casual loading, and other matter relating to rates of pay, and updates to various clauses for clarity, consistency with contemporary standards, and alignment with the IR Act and MCE Act. The Senior Commissioner ordered that the variations be made and take effect on 1 January 2025.

 The decision can be read here.