Recent amendments to the minimum rate of pay for casual employees in Western Australia came into effect on 31 January 2025, increasing the minimum casual rate of pay from 20% to 25% of the statutory minimum rate of pay. This change was made to address the anomaly where some awards under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (IR Act) contained casual rates of pay below the statutory minimum. In response to these changes, the applicant organisation applied for a General Order to ensure all awards provide for a casual loading of at least 25%.

The applicant identified 83 private and local government sector awards with casual employment rates below the minimum required by the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1983 (MCE Act). Other parties to the proceedings noted ongoing proceedings to increase casual loading from 20% to 25% in certain awards and supported extending these conditions to other local government awards, that reforming the state awards in line with the MCE Act would reduce the burden on small employers enough to offset any increase in operating costs resulting from making the General Order, and generally supported the submission of the applicant.

The applicant had standing to apply for a General Order under s 50(2) of the IR Act. The Commission was satisfied that issuing a General Order is consistent with the IR Act's objectives of fair wages and conditions, efficient work organisation, and compliance with minimum conditions. The General Order will ensure awards do not contain casual rates below the statutory minimum, align state and national systems, reduce administrative burdens, and provide greater consistency for local governments. The Commission decided on a one-month period following the publication of the General Order to optimise compliance and deter non-compliance.

The decision can be read here. 

The General Order can be read here.

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated a review of the Catering Employees and Tea Attendants (Government) Award under s 40B of the Industrial Relations Act 1979. The proceedings were initiated to ensure the award does not contain outdated provisions, to remove eliminate discriminatory clauses, and align the award with current employment standards prescribed in the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993.

The Commission provided notice of its intention to vary the award to UnionsWA, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, the Australian Resources and Energy Employers Association, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and the United Workers Union (WA) as the union party to the award.  The Commission sought further input from interested parties, who were represented by the Government Sector Labour Relations Division of DMIRS. All parties expressed support for the proposed variations.

Key amendments to the award include the removal of the year from the title, grouping clauses under functional headings, and updating definitions and references to outdated acts. Additionally, provisions for employment termination, wages, leave provisions, public holidays and annual leave entitlements, and requirements for time and wages records have been updated to align with current standards and legislation.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino decided to vary the award accordingly, with variations to take effect immediately. 

The decision can be read here. 

In the original claim, the respondent union filed an application on behalf of its member regarding an ongoing working from home request made under clause 51 of the Public Sector CSA Agreement 2022.  The union member was employed as an Investigator Advocate for the appellant and had been working from home for approximately 12 months when an extension to the arrangement was requested due to health concerns.  The appellant’s refusal coincided with a blanket direction for all employees to cease COVID-19 WFH arrangements.  The matter was not resolved by conciliation and was referred for arbitration. 

An application was made by the appellant that the application be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, contending the matter involved enforcement of the Agreement.  It was also contended that the proceedings contravened the no extra claims clause of the Agreement in cl 7.2.  The Arbitrator dismissed the appellant’s application, concluding that clause 51 of the Agreement imposes substantive obligations on the employer to consider working from home requests, unless there are reasonable business grounds to refuse them. Further, the Arbitrator concluded the dispute was amenable to the dispute resolution provision in the Agreement and that the proceedings did not involve the enforcement or contravene clause 51 or clause 7.2 of the Agreement.

The Full Bench considered the principles of procedural fairness, the interpretation of clause 51 of the Agreement, and the distinction between judicial and arbitral power. The Full Bench found that clause 51 creates an enforceable entitlement for employees to request working from home arrangements, which can only be refused on reasonable business grounds.  It was concluded that the dispute was about enforcing the terms of clause 51 and that the orders sought were problematic because they aimed to seek an entitlement of WFH under the Agreement, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Magistrates Court.  The Full Bench also held that the claim was covered by the no extra claims clause and was precluded on that basis.  There was no denial of procedural fairness. 

Accordingly, the Full Bench upheld the appeal, quashing the decision at first instance and dismissing the substantive application on the basis of want of jurisdiction. 

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, who was employed as a safety operations business partner with the respondent, was dismissed following investigations into allegations against him and his work-related grievances. The appellant applied to the Work, Health and Safety Tribunal alleging discriminatory conduct, and claimed that the respondent took discriminatory action against him when it placed him on a performance plan and dismissed him for raising work health and safety concerns. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s application finding that the respondent had proved that a prohibited reason was not a substantial reason for the conduct the appellant was aggrieved by.

The appellant lodged his notice of appeal three days out of time, and argued that the Tribunal erred by excluding a recording he sought to rely on, applied the wrong case law, denied him a fair process by failing to make reasonable adjustments, and did not properly understand or apply the objects of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020. 

The Full Bench considered the extension of time for the appeal based on several factors, including the length and reasons for the delay, the prospects of success of the appeal, and the extent of any prejudice to the respondent. In its determination, the Full Bench found that the recordings the appellant sought to admit were not relevant, the case law applied by the Tribunal was appropriate, and the Tribunal had afforded him procedural fairness. The Full Bench also noted that the appellant’s notice of appeal did not identify proper grounds of appeal by alleging an error of law or error of fact in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Full Bench concluded the grounds for the late notice of appeal did not weigh in favour of granting an extension.  Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission is required to set the minimum wage to apply to employers and employees covered by the WA industrial relations system. It must do this before 1 July each year. The current minimum wage for an adult employee is $918.60 per week.

Call for submissions

The Commission invites interested persons and organisations to make a submission to the Commission on what minimum wage should be set in 2025. The Commission will hear oral submissions on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 and if necessary, a half day on Thursday, 22 May 2025. The proceedings are open to the public and will be webcast.

Any person who wishes to make an oral submission at that time should notify the Registrar of the Commission stating the basis of their interest. This must be done by Wednesday, 14 May 2025.

Written submissions are also welcome. Any person or organisation who wishes to make a written submission should do so by Wednesday, 14 May 2025. Copies of written submissions will be made public. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Submissions can be made by email, by post or over the counter (Level 17, 111 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000). Please quote ‘CICS 1 of 2025’ in all correspondence. Please feel free to contact the Commission's Registry about making a submission.

The Notice can be read here.

For more information about the 2025 State Wage Case, click here.