The Commission dismissed the application, stating that with the revocation of reprimands, there was no longer a decision for him to refer to the Commission, and he lacked standing to pursue an application under the relevant section of the Act.

The respondent accused the applicant of misconduct as a relief teacher at Butler Primary School, leading to disciplinary proceedings. After initially proposing a reprimand, the respondent later revoked the reprimands, deciding to take no further action on the allegations due to concerns about the potential stress on student witnesses and resource implications. The respondent then applied for the dismissal of the proceedings, raising a jurisdictional objection regarding whether the matter qualified as an industrial matter.

The applicant, acknowledging the revocation of reprimands, withdrew his application to refer the matter to the Commission but argued that the Commission's jurisdiction still applied for several reasons, including potential violation of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) and being harshly, oppressively, or unfairly treated. The respondent contended that, with the revocation of reprimands, there was no longer a decision to take disciplinary action, and the endorsement on the applicant's employment record was not disciplinary but an administrative part of the employment process.

Commissioner Tsang dismissed the application, citing that when the respondent revoked the reprimands, there was no decision left for the applicant to refer to the Commission. It clarified that s 23(3)(e)(ii) of the Act was not relevant to the question of jurisdiction and that the applicant lacked standing to pursue an application under s 29(1)(c) of the Act, as he had not been dismissed. The Commission emphasised that neither estoppel nor the parties could grant jurisdiction in the absence of grounds, and there was no evidence of a promise made by the respondent that the applicant relied upon to his detriment.

The decision can be read here.