The Commission, of its own motion, has issued its decision in the State Wage order proceedings to adjust the minimum wage for employees under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993, award minimum wages, and minimum rates of pay for employees with a disability operating under the Supported Wage System.

The Minister for Industrial Relations, and union, industry, and welfare bodies made submissions to the Commission in Court Session.  Among these submissions, UnionsWA proposed an increase of 4.5% to award wages and an increase in the State Minimum Wage of $41.34 per week.  The Western Australian Council of Social Service Inc proposed an increase of 4.5%.  The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (Inc) proposed an increase of 2.5%.  The Minister for Industrial Relations did not specify an amount, but supported an increase of no less than the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review 2024-25 increase of 3.5%.  The Western Australian Local Government Association contended that any increase in wages should be fair, while also taking into consideration the current costs environment for Local Governments.

As in previous years, the cost of living was a major consideration when determining the State Minimum Award Wage and an increase in minimum award wages.  Recent high inflation and price increases in food and housing in particular, have seen a reduction in spending power for minimum wage earners.  The Commission also recognised the rising costs for small businesses.  Other key factors, including the State and national economies, living standards, the needs of low paid employees and the capacity of employers to bear the cost of increased wages, were all taken into consideration by the Commission in Court Session.

After considering relevant factors, the Commission in Court Session increased the State Minimum Wage and minimum award rates of pay by 3.75%, with proportionate increases for juniors, apprentices, and trainees.  This will lift the State Minimum Wage to $953 per week. This increase will take effect from 1 July 2025.

A General Order will issue shortly.

The decision can be read here. 

The Commission in Court Session will hand down its decision in the 2025 State Wage Case at 2:30 PM (AWST) on Thursday, 12 June 2025. 

Watch below or click here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings to register the proposed industrial agreement, supported by the two respondent unions. Following the initial application an intervening union sought to intervene the registration process. While the intervening union was part of the negotiations to draft the proposed agreement, it was neither a signatory to nor named as a party to the proposed agreement. The application to intervene sought to make submissions on whether the agreement should be registered, and if the intervening union should also be included as a party to the proposed agreement.  

Negotiations for the proposed agreement followed State legislative changes, in which the local government industry transitioned to the State industrial relations system, allowing pre-existing agreements to continue until renewed or replaced. During negotiations, the intervening union raised concerns about being included as a party to the proposed agreement, and representation of its members. These issues were not resolved, however the parties reached consensus on other terms, including pay rates and classification structures. 

Simultaneously, the intervening union and respondent unions were involved in proceedings under s.72A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, concerning representation rights of the unions concerning local government employees. The applicant’s position on the intervening union’s inclusion as a party to the proposed agreement is contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings.

The intervening union’s intervention application raised several claims, including the argument that the IR Act promotes goodwill and fair bargaining, and that the applicant misled it regarding its inclusion in the proposed agreement, which affected their participation in negotiations.

The applicant argued that the intervening union failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the application and that the claims of misrepresentation of members were unsubstantiated. The applicant also emphasises the intervening union’s involvement in the negotiations was conditional on the resolution of the representation issue in the s.72A proceedings.

Commissioner Kucera upheld the application for leave to intervene, allowing the intervening union to argue its case regarding the proposed agreement’s validity and its potential inclusion as a party. The Commissioner determined that a conciliation conference be scheduled to facilitate discussions on the substantive application. 
 
The decision can be read here.

The applicants, members of the respondent union, had standing to seek orders under s.66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, due to previous Commission orders made in 2018 and 2022. 

The respondent union applied under s.62 of the IR Act to alter its rules, but the Registrar indicated that necessary procedural requirements were not met, prompting the suggestion for an Interim Management Committee to facilitate the process.

The respondent union had previously faced difficulties with the requirements of meeting a quorum, as required by the organisation rules, making it difficult for form a valid management committee or hold special meetings. An order previously granted by the Commission waving the quorum requirement had expired, which had resulted in invalid meetings of the management committee.

The Chief Commissioner reviewed two key compliance issues: the respondent union's rules for a special executive meeting and the election of Vice President positions.  The Chief Commissioner concluded the waiver of compliance was necessary to address the ongoing quorum issues that have affected the respondent union, supported by evidence of agreement among the members. Also noted was a potential issue regarding the number of Vice Presidents required for the organisation, however it was determined that proposed alterations to the rules would clarify this matter. 

Chief Commissioner Kenner made orders for the establishment of an Interim Management Committee to facilitate necessary rule amendments and resolve ongoing quorum issues for the respondent union. The order issued is set to operate until 31 October 2025, allowing for further applications if needed.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant initially referred a matter to the Commission, under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, regarding the respondent’s decision to take disciplinary action against her and demote her position from Principal Officer to Senior Officer.  The parties attended a conciliation conference, without reaching a settlement, and the respondent agreed to provide video evidence of the alleged misconduct of the applicant. The applicant was to view the evidence and then consider her options before progressing with the matter, however due to the location of the evidence and the applicant’s work schedule her opportunities were limited.

Ongoing communication between the applicant and her legal representative took place, with an aim to obtain additional evidence and negotiate a settlement with the respondent.  The respondent subsequently applied to the Commission to dismiss the application alleging that the applicant had not progressed her case. The applicant contended that the delay in progressing the matter were attributed to her own efforts to negotiate a settlement with the respondent, and to gain access to evidence supplied by the respondent.  

The Commissioner reviewed the circumstances surrounding the case, including the ongoing efforts of the applicant to engage with her lawyer and the respondent in order to negotiate a settlement.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that there was no evidence the applicant’s behaviour had ‘been intentional and continuous’ or that her delay was ‘inexcusable’. Rather, the applicant had a reasonable belief that she was progressing her application through various means including negotiations conducted by meetings and correspondence.  Accordingly, the respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal was refused. 

The decision can be read here.