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.