The applicant union commenced proceedings to register the proposed industrial agreement, supported by the two respondent unions. Following the initial application an intervening union sought to intervene the registration process. While the intervening union was part of the negotiations to draft the proposed agreement, it was neither a signatory to nor named as a party to the proposed agreement. The application to intervene sought to make submissions on whether the agreement should be registered, and if the intervening union should also be included as a party to the proposed agreement.  

Negotiations for the proposed agreement followed State legislative changes, in which the local government industry transitioned to the State industrial relations system, allowing pre-existing agreements to continue until renewed or replaced. During negotiations, the intervening union raised concerns about being included as a party to the proposed agreement, and representation of its members. These issues were not resolved, however the parties reached consensus on other terms, including pay rates and classification structures. 

Simultaneously, the intervening union and respondent unions were involved in proceedings under s.72A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, concerning representation rights of the unions concerning local government employees. The applicant’s position on the intervening union’s inclusion as a party to the proposed agreement is contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings.

The intervening union’s intervention application raised several claims, including the argument that the IR Act promotes goodwill and fair bargaining, and that the applicant misled it regarding its inclusion in the proposed agreement, which affected their participation in negotiations.

The applicant argued that the intervening union failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the application and that the claims of misrepresentation of members were unsubstantiated. The applicant also emphasises the intervening union’s involvement in the negotiations was conditional on the resolution of the representation issue in the s.72A proceedings.

Commissioner Kucera upheld the application for leave to intervene, allowing the intervening union to argue its case regarding the proposed agreement’s validity and its potential inclusion as a party. The Commissioner determined that a conciliation conference be scheduled to facilitate discussions on the substantive application. 
 
The decision can be read here.

The applicants, members of the respondent union, had standing to seek orders under s.66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, due to previous Commission orders made in 2018 and 2022. 

The respondent union applied under s.62 of the IR Act to alter its rules, but the Registrar indicated that necessary procedural requirements were not met, prompting the suggestion for an Interim Management Committee to facilitate the process.

The respondent union had previously faced difficulties with the requirements of meeting a quorum, as required by the organisation rules, making it difficult for form a valid management committee or hold special meetings. An order previously granted by the Commission waving the quorum requirement had expired, which had resulted in invalid meetings of the management committee.

The Chief Commissioner reviewed two key compliance issues: the respondent union's rules for a special executive meeting and the election of Vice President positions.  The Chief Commissioner concluded the waiver of compliance was necessary to address the ongoing quorum issues that have affected the respondent union, supported by evidence of agreement among the members. Also noted was a potential issue regarding the number of Vice Presidents required for the organisation, however it was determined that proposed alterations to the rules would clarify this matter. 

Chief Commissioner Kenner made orders for the establishment of an Interim Management Committee to facilitate necessary rule amendments and resolve ongoing quorum issues for the respondent union. The order issued is set to operate until 31 October 2025, allowing for further applications if needed.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant initially referred a matter to the Commission, under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, regarding the respondent’s decision to take disciplinary action against her and demote her position from Principal Officer to Senior Officer.  The parties attended a conciliation conference, without reaching a settlement, and the respondent agreed to provide video evidence of the alleged misconduct of the applicant. The applicant was to view the evidence and then consider her options before progressing with the matter, however due to the location of the evidence and the applicant’s work schedule her opportunities were limited.

Ongoing communication between the applicant and her legal representative took place, with an aim to obtain additional evidence and negotiate a settlement with the respondent.  The respondent subsequently applied to the Commission to dismiss the application alleging that the applicant had not progressed her case. The applicant contended that the delay in progressing the matter were attributed to her own efforts to negotiate a settlement with the respondent, and to gain access to evidence supplied by the respondent.  

The Commissioner reviewed the circumstances surrounding the case, including the ongoing efforts of the applicant to engage with her lawyer and the respondent in order to negotiate a settlement.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that there was no evidence the applicant’s behaviour had ‘been intentional and continuous’ or that her delay was ‘inexcusable’. Rather, the applicant had a reasonable belief that she was progressing her application through various means including negotiations conducted by meetings and correspondence.  Accordingly, the respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal was refused. 

The decision can be read here.

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated a review of the Plaster, Plasterglass and Cement Workers’ 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 remove discriminatory clauses and outdated provisions, and align to the award with current employment standards prescribed by the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993. 

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, the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers (WA) as the union party to the Award.  The Commission also sought further input from interested parties. The Minister and the Union both confirmed their support for the proposed variations with some further minor variations for accuracy and clarity. The variations were not opposed.

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, and deleting obsolete clauses. Additionally, provisions for flexible working arrangements, termination of employment, wages, leave provisions – including family and domestic violence leave and parental leave, right of entry provisions and redundancy provisions have been updated to align with current standards and legislation.

The decision can be read here.

In the original application, the appellant commenced a claim for an equal remuneration order. The substance of the application however, suggested the appellant was seeking the recovery of unpaid wages from the respondent. The Commissioner listed the appellant’s application for a hearing to show cause why it should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The hearing was listed for a variety of reasons, including the appellant’s inaction on progressing the application and complying with directions or communication with the Commission. After failing to appear for the show cause hearing, the Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s application.

The appellant appealed against the order of the Commissioner, citing the primary basis for the challenge was that the appellant was unable to attend the show cause hearing due to a personal matter. No challenge was made by the appellant to the Commissioner’s findings, nor was there any challenge against the claims of failing to communicate with the Commission.

The Full Bench considered appellant’s argument; however, the Full Bench was not persuaded there was any error made by the Commissioner in dismissing the original claim, nor had any appealable error been demonstrated by the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 

In handing down its reasons for decision, the Full Bench highlighted the importance of parties to proceedings before the Commission to exercise prompt and clear communication with the Commission and Registry, in order for matters to be dealt with expeditiously. 

The decision can be read here.