The applicant, who was employed as a pastor for the respondent in 2023, filed an unfair dismissal claim in the Commission 29 days after the prescribed time limit under s 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act). The respondent discovered that the applicant had engaged in secondary employment as a part-time mathematics teacher, which they argue breached his contract as a pastor. The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the grounds that the applicant’s conduct was misleading and breached the terms of his contract.

The employment contract required the applicant to devote his full attention during normal working hours to church duties and prohibited holding any position that would conflict with his obligations unless disclosed and approved by his employer. The respondent presented undisputed evidence that the applicant worked multiple days at various schools during his tenure, including full workdays in November 2023, without informing the respondent.

The applicant contended that his contract did not require disclosure of secondary employment, especially as some teaching days fell on his non-working days at the church. He claimed his pastoral duties involved flexible hours and that he met the required 38 hours weekly, often working evenings and weekends.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant’s failure to disclose his secondary employment and the resulting compromise of his availability during normal working hours constituted a breach of his contract. Further, the applicant’s conduct and evasive responses during proceedings undermined the trust essential to the employment relationship and rendered reinstatement inappropriate.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached its Constitution and contract by failing to follow proper procedures for termination, including holding a Special Church Members Meeting and adhering to performance review and dispute resolution clauses. The Respondent countered that such claims could not be upheld given the applicant’s own breaches of contract.  The Commissioner emphasised the equitable jurisdiction under the IR Act, allowing it to deny relief to applicants who have acted without clean hands, holding that an applicant who breaches their contract and causes loss to the employer cannot claim benefits under that contract.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant breached his contract by engaging in undisclosed secondary employment that conflicted with his pastoral duties. The Commissioner concluded that the applicant’s conduct destroyed the necessary trust and good faith with the respondent, making reinstatement unsuitable. Consequently, the unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

 

The decision can be read here.