In April 2024, the applicant applied to the Commission under s 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) about a dispute concerning a member’s entitlement to paid sick leave. The dispute arose after the respondent decided in March 2024 to stop granting paid sick leave for three months to a police officer member. The officer was incapacitated by post-traumatic stress disorder and had been absent on sick leave since December 2023. The respondent revoked the sick leave on the basis that the officer had not shown sufficient engagement with, and progress in, the respondents return-to-work program. After an unsuccessful compulsory conference, the matter was referred for hearing and determination. 

The respondent first argued that the application could not be heard because it was a further claim barred by a no further claims clause in the applicable industrial agreement, which was in force at the time. The applicant said it was not seeking to change the sick leave terms; rather, it asked the Commission to review how the respondent exercised its discretion. The Commission found that, in practical effect, the orders sought by the applicant would go beyond reviewing a single decision. Instead, they would effectively prescribe criteria governing how the respondent must exercise its discretion to grant paid sick leave, thereby materially altering the operation of the relevant clause and improving upon conditions contained in the agreement. The Commission held that it would not be consistent with equity, good conscience, or the statutory scheme to deal with a claim that would effectively add to the parties’ agreed bargain while the agreement remained in force. 

Commissioner Walkington found the applicants claim was prohibited by the no further claims clause and that it was in the public interest to dismiss the proceedings. In light of that conclusion, it was unnecessary to decide whether the respondents March 2024 decision was industrially fair on its merits, or to consider the respondents additional objections (including as to power and jurisdiction). Accordingly, the application was dismissed. 

The decision can be read here.