In September 2025, the Commission found that the applicant had been unfairly dismissed from her employment by the respondent: [2025] WAIRC 00805. These further reasons deal with remedy. The respondent gave no evidence or submissions about remedy at the initial hearing in January 2025 and did not appear at the further hearing in November 2025, which was convened for that purpose.

The applicant did not seek reinstatement, saying the employment relationship had broken down and her former position had been abolished. Instead, she sought compensation of six weeks’ wages (which she said reflected the minimum period it would have taken to end her employment fairly), as well as compensation for emotional distress. She relied on evidence that the respondent had offered her reduced hours on the basis that she would remain employed, and that she had made financial and medical arrangements accordingly. She was then dismissed by email while on leave, with only a general statement that it was in the business’s best interests. The applicant also gave evidence about her efforts to find work after the dismissal, and the impact of her visual impairment, ongoing medical costs and financial stress on her ability to obtain alternative employment.

The Commissioner determined that reinstatement was impracticable on the evidence and therefore proceeded to assess compensation for loss and injury under the statutory framework. The Commissioner applied established principles drawn from precedent case law, including that compensation must reflect demonstrated loss or injury caused by the dismissal, is not punitive, and must be assessed judicially on the evidence and all relevant circumstances. On economic loss, the Commissioner accepted the applicant’s submission that six weeks represented the minimum period in which the respondent could have lawfully and fairly brought the employment to an end, having regard to consultation obligations under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993 (WA) and notice requirements under the Clerks (Commercial, Social and Professional Services) Award. The Commissioner also accepted that the abrupt termination of the applicant, after earlier representations that employment would continue on reduced hours, caused distress beyond the ordinary upset associated with termination.

Commissioner Walkington ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $11,814.92 gross, comprising $6,814.92 for loss (equivalent to six weeks’ wages, being the minimum period in which the respondent could have fairly implemented a redundancy process, including consultation and notice) and $5,000 for injury. Payment was ordered within seven days.

The decision can be read here.   

Commission varies Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards

The applicant sought a variation to the Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards General Order, which was made in March 2025 to ensure that selected private sector and local government awards provide a minimum casual loading of 25% of the ordinary hourly rate, consistent with s 11 of the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993 (WA).  The applicant sought to extend the General Order to public sector awards that set a lower casual loading, or no casual loading at all.

Notice of the proceedings were published in November 2025 and provided to relevant stakeholders, including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the Executive Director, Government Sector Labour Relations Division, Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety. The respondent supported the application, while making clear that its position should not be taken as indicating any outcome in bargaining for industrial agreements. The parties agreed the application could be determined on the papers. The Commission concluded the variation was desirable to promote fairness and equity, remove anomalies between awards covering similar work, reflect contemporary community standards about fair casual employment conditions, and ensure award provisions do not result in casual rates falling below statutory minimums. The Commission also held the matter was not a “public sector decision” under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA).

The Commission was satisfied the General Order should be varied to extend its coverage to the identified public sector awards. The General Order operates from April 2025 for the selected private sector and local government awards to which it originally applied, and from February 2026 for the public sector awards brought into coverage by the variation, and will continue unless later rescinded. The Commission noted that most public sector employees are covered by industrial agreements, so the practical impact on amounts paid may be limited but considered the variation appropriate to secure consistency and ensure a minimum 25% casual loading applies for casual employees under the affected public sector awards. Accordingly, the general order was varied.

The decision can be read here.