The applicant applied to the Work Health and Safety Tribunal (Tribunal) for an external review of the respondent’s decision to cancel a provisional improvement notice (PIN). The applicant’s employer sought leave to intervene in the proceedings, arguing that it had a direct interest in the outcome as it would bear the consequences if the Tribunal set aside the decision.  The respondent supported the employer’s application, stating that the employer was best placed to provide additional information of the circumstances to assist the Tribunal.

The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties regarding the matter of granting leave to intervene. The employer argued that while the respondent is the proper contradictor, its submissions are limited under Work Health and Safety legislation and therefore may not address all necessary matters at hand. The respondent supported this view, citing the employer’s direct interest in the matter, their compliance with the issued PIN, and the assistance they would provide to the Tribunal. The applicant did not oppose the employer’s intervention but insisted that the respondent should fully participate in the proceedings. The applicant further argued that since the employer had already complied with the PIN, the risk in the workplace had been removed, and therefore there was no compliance risk to the employer if the PIN were to be reinstated.

In reviewing submissions by the parties, the Tribunal referred to the principles set out in the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act) and relevant case law, which emphasise that a person whose rights will be directly affected by an order must be given a full and fair opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer’s interest in the matter was sufficient to justify intervention. The Tribunal was persuaded that the intervening party would be directly affected by the order sought by the applicant and was best placed to provide additional evidence about the current circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued an order under s 27(1)(k) of the IR Act, to allow the employer to intervene in the application.

 

The decision can be read here.