The matter revolved around the entitlement of police officers to the Annual Leave Travel Concession under the Western Australia Police Force Industrial Agreement 2021. The applicant sought various forms of relief, including payment of a Motor Vehicle Allowance, reimbursement of annual leave, a declaration of breach by the employer, and a pecuniary penalty.

The primary issue was whether the police officer’s entitlement to the travel concession accrues on an annual basis or a calendar year basis. The interpretation of clause 30(9) of the Agreement was pivotal in determining their entitlement. The applicant argued that the travel concession should be calculated on a calendar year basis, while the respondent contended that it accrues on an annual basis, tied to the commencement of the employee's service in the remote area.

Industrial Magistrate Coleman, analysing the language of the relevant clause, emphasised that the drafting parties likely focused on practicality and the industrial relations environment, avoiding a literal interpretation if inconsistent with the apparent intention.  Coleman IM found that the applicant’s interpretation was incorrect, and that the entitlement accrued on an annual basis from the commencement of service in the remote area.

The respondent had the discretion to approve the travel allowance in advance, as stipulated in subclause 9(a)(ii).   Coleman IM noted that the applicant did not seek prior approval before taking annual leave in March/April 2022, which was before the accrual date of their final travel allowance entitlement. The rejection of the travel concession by the respondent was justified, and consequently, there was no breach of the Agreement.

In conclusion, Coleman IM dismissed the applicant’s claims, stating that the police officers were not entitled to the travel concession for their trip in March/April 2022 unless they sought and were granted prior approval from the employer. As they failed to establish this claim, there was no breach of the Agreement, and the claims were dismissed.

The decision can be read here.