The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The hearing will commence at 10:30 AM (AWST) on Thursday, 4 June 2026. You can watch the livestream below or view the Wage Case 2026 page for further information.

A union had applied for a right of entry permit for one of its officials under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). The Commission was required to determine whether the official was a fit and proper person to hold a permit, having regard to the statutory criteria and any other relevant matters. Certain matters had been disclosed in the application relevant to the fit and proper purpose test, however, there were omissions and inaccuracies in the affidavit materials filed in support of the application.

Chief Commissioner Kenner concluded that, having regard to all of the evidence, the official was a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit, and accordingly a permit was issued. However in doing so, the Chief Commissioner observed that the deficiencies in the application were serious, and that full and accurate disclosure is central to the proper operation of the right of entry regime and to public confidence in the permit process. The Commission accepted that the omissions and inaccuracies were not deliberate but resulted from carelessness in preparing the material before it.

The decision can be read here.      

The appellant was employed by the respondent as a driving assessor. He was dismissed in December 2024 following a disciplinary process conducted under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA).

In his appeal, the appellant denied engaging in conduct warranting dismissal and contended that the termination of his employment was harsh, oppressive, and unfair. He sought reinstatement and compensation for monetary loss. The respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified.

The appellant did not attend the Commission when the hearing of his appeal commenced.  The Commission was able to contact him by telephone. He told the Commission he had forgotten the hearing and was away on a family holiday. He also indicated that he was content for the Board to determine the appeal in his absence, based on the filed materials.

The Board found that the appeal could not fairly be determined on the written materials alone because the factual allegations relied upon to justify the dismissal were disputed and the matter would require oral evidence and credibility findings. In those circumstances, the Board considered that adjourning and relisting the matter would occasion unfair prejudice to the respondent, which had prepared for a contested three-day hearing. It also considered that any further delay would be inconsistent with the need for dismissal appeals to be dealt with promptly. The Board concluded that the applicant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case, but had failed to prosecute the appeal, and that the interests of justice required that the appeal be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to s 27(1)(a) of the IR Act. 

The decision can be read here.   

The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Program Manager in Mental Health Services. In May 2025, the respondent had directed the applicant not to attend work but remain on full pay while it investigated allegations of inappropriate behaviour. The applicant applied to the Commission to vary that direction.  

The respondent argued that the applicant, as an employee of a health service provider, could not bring the claim under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA), and that the Health Services Act 2016 (WA) permits an individual employee to refer only certain specified decisions to the Commission. The direction was not such a decision.

The respondent applied for the dismissal of the claim on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to deal with it.

Commissioner Kucera accepted that, although the dispute concerned an employment matter, the applicant’s suspension on full pay pending investigation was not a decision he could refer to the Commission under that statutory scheme. Commissioner Kucera also found that no disciplinary action had yet been taken against the applicant, because the respondent had not reached any finding on the allegations and was still conducting its investigation.

Commissioner Kucera concluded that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s referral and that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The respondent’s application to dismiss was upheld, and the substantive application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.