In May 2024, the respondent, WorkSafe, issued five improvement notices to the applicant, pertaining to airborne contaminants, traffic management, conveyor guarding, forklift loads, and mobile trestle loads. Initially, the compliance date was set for 5 July 2024, which was extended to 26 July 2024 following review.

The applicant sought an external review from the Tribunal and applied for a stay of the notices, arguing that the respondent lacked the authority to issue them. The respondent agreed to the stay but argued that the applicant did not meet the criteria for it.

The Tribunal determined that the stay was essential to preserve the appeal’s integrity since complying with the notices before the appeal was resolved could nullify the proceedings. The applicant had an arguable case, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay due to potential costs and risks of immediate compliance.

The Tribunal granted the stay and ordered that the substantive applications be heard together.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, dismissed by the respondent after being convicted of dangerous driving resulting in death and exceeding the legal alcohol limit, appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board. He sought to overturn the dismissal, be reinstated, receive full entitlements, and have his employment continuity recognised, arguing that the dismissal was unfair as it occurred after his conviction but before the end of his criminal proceedings.

The respondent applied to have the appeal dismissed, citing that reinstatement was impractical due to the appellant's imprisonment and other validity issues. The appellant had been sentenced to four years in prison.

The Board determined that the appellant's convictions were 'serious offences' under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which justified the dismissal. Given that the Board can only order reinstatement and that reinstatement was not feasible due to the appellant's imprisonment, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

The Public Service Appeal Board dismissed an appeal against the termination of a local government Chief Executive Officer. The appellant filed the appeal under s 80I(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, challenging his dismissal and seeking to have his resignation overturned. The Board’s preliminary issue was whether the appellant qualified as a "government officer,” a prerequisite for jurisdiction under the Act.

The Board found that the statutory definition of a "government officer," is defined under the Act as a public service officer, or as someone employed by a public authority. The appellant’s employment with the respondent did not meet these definitions as the respondent is categorised as a local government, not a public authority or public service organisation.

The Board also considered the appellant’s arguments referencing other sections of the Act, such as s 23 and s 29(1)(c), which pertain to industrial matters and the Commission’s jurisdiction over local government employees. However, the appeal was determined not to fall within the Board’s jurisdiction since the appellant did not make an unfair dismissal claim to the Commission but instead appealed directly to the Public Service Appeal Board.

Ultimately, as the Board found that the appellant did not meet the criteria to be considered a government officer under the Act, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The decision can be read here. 

The Local Government, Racing and Cemeteries Employees Union (LGRCEU) applied to increase the Industry Allowance in the Municipal Employees (Western Australia) Award 2021 from $21.82 to $34.82 per week. The Union argued that the allowance had not been updated for a significant period and no longer reflected its intended value. The proposed increase aims to align the allowance with the Adverse Working Conditions Allowance in the Local Government Industry Award 2020.

Supported by the Western Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union of Employees (WASU), the application faced no opposition. The proposed change does not affect the Award's scope or operation and meets the requirements for variation. The Union highlighted that the Industry Allowance had remained static while wage rates for key classifications had risen significantly.

The Senior Commissioner acknowledged that the Industry Allowance had not been updated and that this disparity needed to be addressed to ensure fairness within the State industrial relations system. She decided to increase the Industry Allowance to $34.82 per week, effective from the beginning of the first pay period following the Order. This adjustment aims to rectify the longstanding inequity and align the allowance with similar rates under the Modern Award.

The decision can be read here.