The Full Bench has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court, finding that the employee had failed to establish that the respondent had contravened the Public Sector CSA Agreement 2019 (Agreement), and that the Industrial Magistrates Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the voluntary severance offer.

Background

The appellant was employed by the respondent in the position of Regional Coordinator Operations. On 23 September 2020, the appellant was made an offer of voluntary severance under the Public Sector Management (Redeployment and Redundancy) Regulations 2014 (Regulations).

The appellant contended that he was provided with incorrect advice by officers of the respondent, and as such, was only given three weeks to accept the offer of voluntary severance, instead of eight weeks as prescribed by the Regulations, depriving him of five weeks’ salary.

First instance

The appellant made a claim in the Industrial Magistrate’s Court, on the grounds that the shortened period of employment contravened the offer of voluntary severance and the Regulations. The respondent applied to the court to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Her Honour, Industrial Magistrate O’Donnell, granted the respondent’s application and dismissed the claim.

Appeal

The appellant appealed the decision of the learned Industrial Magistrate to the Full Bench under s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (Act), on the ground that cl 51.1 the Agreement  was contravened. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to comply with the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA) (PSM Act), the Regulations and the Agreement, and that the court was able to enforce statutory instruments.

Findings

The Full Bench outlined that the Industrial Magistrate’s Court is established under Part III of the Act as an inferior court of record. As such, it has no inherent jurisdiction and powers, and they are as specified in the Act.

The Full Bench noted that under s 81AA of the Act, the PSM Act, and the Regulations made under it, were not a specified statutes under which the court obtains jurisdiction. The Full Bench held that while the Agreement was an instrument that may be enforced by the court under s 83(2)(b) of the Act, this would only apply where the appellant could establish that the respondent contravened or failed to comply with the Agreement. The Full Bench held that no contravention or failure to comply was established, and the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.