NOTICE is given by the Commission’s Own Motion pursuant to section 37D of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) of the Commission’s intention to vary the scope of the Metal Trades (General) Award and make other consequential changes. The proposed variations which relate to scope are published in the annexed table.

The Notice can be read here.

In the course of ongoing proceedings for representation orders under s72A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, the Commission in Court Session was required to determine whether documents in the possession of the applicant union (WASU) and an intervenor (WALGA), were privileged from production.

The documents in the lists were all communications that passed between WASU’s lawyers, WALGA’s employees and lawyers, and witnesses, exchanged while the s72A proceedings were on foot, and related to the s72A proceedings.

Another union party to the proceedings (CFMEU) sought production of the documents, and challenged WASU and WALGA’s privilege claims.

The CFMEU argued that the principles in relation to legal professional privilege included a rule that communications between parties to proceedings could not be the subject of the privilege. The Commission in Court Session found that the rule did not apply to any and all communications between any parties, but rather applied to opposing parties only. WASU and WALGA were not opposing parties in the proceedings. Rather, they had common interests, albeit not identical interests.

Because WASU and WALGA had common interests, the communications between them remained confidential, and common interest privilege principle meant that documents which would ordinarily have been the subject of legal professional privilege, remained privileged in the hands of both parties.

Accordingly, the Commission in Court Session upheld the privilege claims and declined to make an order for production of the documents.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant was employed as a Senior Consultant with the respondent and was dismissed after being convicted of aggravated common assault, an offence for which he sentenced to a suspended 12-month imprisonment term. The respondent initiated disciplinary action under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, leading to the applicant’s dismissal.

The applicant argued that his dismissal was unfair given the personal nature of the offence and that it was unrelated to his job duties.  He also argued that his long employment with the respondent should be taken into consideration.  The applicant sought reinstatement with the respondent or alternative sanctions to termination, such as demotion, suspension, or a formal warning.

The respondent however, maintained that dismissal of the applicant was justified, due to the seriousness of the offence and its incompatibility with his employment in an integrity-based role within the public service. The respondent presented evidence outlining the applicant’s role and involvement in managing referrals, notifications, and assessments related to public sector integrity and misconduct investigations. The role responsibilities also included providing advice on compliance with ethical standards and conducting reviews and investigations on behalf of the respondent. The respondent argued that given the nature of these duties, the position demands the highest standards of honesty and integrity. For these reasons, and due to the potential reputational damage to the organisation, the respondent refused to impose a lesser penalty to the applicant.

The Public Service Appeal Board reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties, and considered the seriousness of the offence, and the lack of remorse shown by the applicant. The Board found the dismissal process was conducted fairly, with supportive measures offered to the applicant during the process, including suspension on full pay along with access to accumulated leave entitlements, and post dismissal by the provision of counselling services to assist with his rehabilitation.

The Public Service Appeal Board ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unfair, or disproportionate, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

In this matter, the applicant sought an order under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for an alteration to the respondent union’s rules.  The applicant sought the order despite the quorum requirement for a members’ meeting not being met, as there was prior support for the Rules alteration.

Under a previous matter, an order was made by the Commission to establish an Interim Board of the union to enable it to continue while amendments to the union’s Rules were being progressed.  Further orders were made by the commission to extend the operation of the Interim Board to September 2025.

Subsequently, two member meetings were held; the first in February 2025, which passed a resolution supporting the rule changes, and the second in June 2025 which authorised the Interim Board to apply for rule alterations. However the June meeting did not meet the quorum requirement of 50 percent of the union’s membership plus one member. 

The applicant stated that while the quorum requirement for the meeting was not met, the membership attendance was high, and that previously a resolution had been passed by members for the proposed Rules amendments to proceed.

Having regard to the evidence presented, Chief Commissioner Kenner exercised powers under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 to grant a waiver to the quorum requirement for the June meeting, allowing the amendments to proceed.  Accordingly, an Order was issued.

The decision can be read here. 

In related proceedings before the Commission, the applicant union sought authorisation from the Commission in Court Session under s 62 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 to alter its Rules, specifically to align the eligibility of membership to the applicant’s federal counterpart, and to enable those elected to office within the federal branch to also hold office with the applicant.  The Commission in Court session was satisfied that the applicant had complied with its Rules, and an order was issued to register to the Rule alterations.

In this application the applicant union sought declarations to support the issue of a s 71 certificate, namely: that the office of the applicant is a counterpart to the federal branch, that qualifications of persons for membership are deemed to be the same, and that for every office in the applicant, there is a corresponding office in the federal branch.  In support of the application, a statutory declaration was filed by the Deputy Secretary of the applicant union, confirming that the application sought to align eligibility for membership with the federal Branch, and declared that the offices of the applicant and the federal Branch were almost identical.

In reviewing the statutory requirements relating to membership and a comparison of office holders, the Commission in Court Session concluded that the functions and powers of the offices of the applicant and federal branch are identical, and that for each office in the applicant there was a corresponding office in the federal branch.  Accordingly, declarations were issued.

The decision can be read here.