The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The applicant, who was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent local government authority, was summarily dismissed from his position for serious misconduct. Subsequently, the applicant filed an unfair dismissal claim against the respondent.

The applicant contended that the findings made against him were not supported by the available evidence and were not impartial, and that the investigation denied him procedural fairness. The applicant stated his gross salary was $192,213 and identified the Local Government Officers’ (Western Australia) Award 2021 (LGO Award) as applying to his employment.

The respondent denied that the termination was unfair and objected to the applicant referring his claim to the Commission, arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the applicant’s contract of employment provided for a salary exceeding the prescribed amount of $187,800 and no industrial instrument applied to him.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino determined that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the unfair dismissal claim, as an industrial instrument did not apply to the applicant’s employment and his salary exceeded the prescribed amount.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, who worked for the respondent first as a Special Needs Education Assistant and then as a School Officer was dismissed from her role when the respondent determined that the appellant was unable to fulfill the inherent requirements of the position.

Following a disciplinary investigation into allegations of misconduct that resulted in disciplinary action, the appellant was transferred to a different location, where concerns about her absenteeism from work were raised. As a result, the respondent proposed to dismiss her, and then terminated her employment with four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

The appellant contended that her dismissal was unfair on the grounds that her absences were due to legitimate reasons and that dismissal was unfair given her length of service and employment history. The Appeal Board reviewed the dismissal de novo, considering the evidence presented and the respondent's decision.

The Appeal Board found that the appellant’s inability to maintain regular attendance rendered her unable to fulfill the inherent requirements of her role. The Appeal Board also considered her past disciplinary history and the impact of her absences on the respondent's operations, and upheld her dismissal, dismissing the appeal.

The decision can be read here. 

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.