The Public Service Appeal Board dismissed the appellant's appeal, citing the inconsistency of pursuing the appeal with a prior Settlement Agreement and expressing concern about the potential effect on employer settlement discussions.

The appellant, employed as an Executive Officer Level 5 by the Department of Communities, faced disciplinary action initiated by the Acting Assistant Director General on 9 February 2022. The allegations involved breaches of the Code of Conduct, specifically related to misleading information in recruitment processes and inappropriate use of emails. Displeased with the Department's decision, the appellant appealed to the Appeal Board on 3 July 2022. Concurrently, she sought orders from the Commission to address bullying conduct under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA).

However, on 20 April 2023, the Commission dismissed the appellant's application for stop bullying orders. The Department contended that the appeal should be dismissed as the appellant had allegedly agreed, as part of a Settlement Agreement, to discontinue the appeal under s 51BM of the Act. The appellant, on the other hand, argued that the Department failed to fulfill its commitment to finding her a suitable position within a specified timeframe.

The Appeal Board, upon evaluating the situation, found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement implied an agreement to dismiss the appeal by consent. Additionally, the Appeal Board noted that continuing the appeal contradicted the agreement's provision that disciplinary findings and reprimands would remain in place. The Appeal Board considered the appellant's pursuit of the appeal inconsistent with the Act, emphasising that the matter had been settled by agreement.

Furthermore, the Appeal Board considered that allowing the appeal to proceed after a settlement would set a precedent, effecting employers engaging in settlement discussions. The dismissal of the appeal under s 27(1)(a) of the Act was based on the Appeal Board's conclusion that, in light of the settled resolution and the absence of exceptional reasons, it would not be justifiable or equitable for the appellant to seek a review of the employer's decision.

The decision can be read here.