The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Level G8 Senior Supply Specialist and, at times, acted in higher-level positions. In 2024, the respondent imposed disciplinary action on the appellant, including a reduction in remuneration and a reprimand, after finding that the appellant had committed three breaches of discipline relating to the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The appellant appealed this decision to the Public Service Appeal Board (the Appeal Board), arguing that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair, the sanction was disproportionate, and not based on all available facts.

An external investigator reviewed the matter, and the respondent confirmed the disciplinary action in October 2024, which was later superseded by a further letter in November 2024.

The Appeal Board considered whether the appellant had engaged in the alleged conduct, whether that conduct constituted a breach of discipline, and whether the disciplinary action was fair. The allegations were as follows:

• The appellant breached confidentiality by sending sensitive documents to an external party;

• The appellant failed to raise concerns when a subordinate sent confidential recruitment information to the same external party; and
• The appellant again breached confidentiality by sending internal information to the external party, who was not employed or engaged by the respondent.

The Appeal Board determined that the appellant did not seriously contest the conduct alleged in the three allegations, finding that the appellant had indeed sent the relevant emails and failed to raise concerns as required. The information disclosed was confidential and sensitive, specifically, commercial-in-confidence pricing, stock levels, and recruitment data. Sharing this information with an external party not bound by confidentiality obligations was deemed a breach of discipline.

The Appeal Board rejected arguments that the context of the COVID-19 pandemic or the external party’s previous employment with the respondent excused the conduct. The Appeal Board also found that the appellant’s failure to raise concerns about his subordinate’s conduct was itself a breach of discipline, reflecting a lack of insight into confidentiality obligations. Mitigating factors, such as the pandemic and the appellant’s previously unblemished record, were acknowledged but did not excuse the breaches.

The Appeal Board concluded that the appellant engaged in the conduct alleged in all three allegations with the first allegation being particularly serious due to the nature and volume of information disclosed and the appellant’s seniority within the organisation. The disciplinary action imposed by the respondent, a reprimand for each breach, reduction in remuneration, and a final warning, was found to be fair and proportionate in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.  

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, claiming that she was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The applicant, who lives with disabilities, was employed as a clerk at the respondent’s cleaning service from March 2022. Initially engaged part-time, she transitioned to full-time employment in February 2023, providing administrative support for cleaning operations, particularly for clients under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In April 2024, the respondent cited financial difficulties and proposed a reduction in the applicant’s working hours. The applicant agreed to the reduced hours. However, while on pre-approved annual leave, she received a new contract reflecting the change, including a lower pay rate. The respondent subsequently withdrew the offer of continued employment, effectively terminating the applicant’s employment.

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal, citing the abrupt withdrawal of employment, lack of consultation, and absence of proper notice or severance pay. She emphasised the impact on her wellbeing and future employment prospects. The respondent argued that the dismissal constituted a genuine redundancy necessitated by business cost-cutting, asserting that the business employed fewer than 15 staff and was therefore not obliged to pay redundancy entitlements. The respondent further stated that the applicant’s administrative duties were now shared between the respondent and her son.

Commissioner Walkington found on the evidence presented that the respondent failed to communicate the redundancy decision clearly, did not provide written notice, and maintained a facade of ongoing employment by offering a part-time contract before abruptly withdrawing it. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s actions did not meet the procedural fairness requirements for redundancy, including consultation, notice, and severance payment obligations. The respondent’s assertion regarding employee headcount was found to be incorrect, as casual employees should have been included, bringing the total to 18.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that, even if the termination was a genuine redundancy, the manner in which it was affected was harsh and unfair. The respondent failed to communicate the decision adequately, did not consult or consider alternatives, and did not provide the required notice or severance payment. The abrupt withdrawal of employment, especially given the applicant’s personal circumstances and challenges in securing alternative employment, rendered the dismissal harsh and unfair. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the applicant was unfairly dismissed.

The decision can be read here.  

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission in 2021 seeking compensation for her dismissal from the respondent.  The respondent denied that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and also initially objected to the jurisdiction of the commission on the basis that it was a National System Employer.  The respondent later withdrew the objection to jurisdictional grounds, and the matter was the subject of conciliation proceedings.  Following the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for hearing and determination.

Over the course of several months in 2022, the Commission issued directions for filing witness statements and evidence, setting deadlines and scheduled a hearing to proceed with the matter. Despite multiple reminders and opportunities, the applicant failed to file witness statements, respond to communication regarding her intention to proceed, or attend scheduled hearings. In early 2025 the Commission contacted the parties, informing the applicant that she may discontinue her matter or appear at a hearing to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. 

The applicant did not attend the hearing despite proper notification, and as such Commissioner Walkington considered the applicant had failed to progress her application and did not have sufficient interest in the matter. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission in Court Session by UnionsWA Incorporated under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). The application by UnionsWA is for the variation of the Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards General Order [2025] WAIRC 00136, (2025) 105 WAIG 419 by adding the public sector awards listed in the schedule to the “Awards List” of the General Order. The effect of the variation is to extend the minimum casual loading of 25 per cent of the ordinary rate of the relevant classification of the award, to all public sector awards.

The notice can be read here.

Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards General Order [2025] WAIRC 00136, (2025) 105 WAIG 419

The applicant, who was employed as a pastor for the respondent in 2023, filed an unfair dismissal claim in the Commission 29 days after the prescribed time limit under s 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act). The respondent discovered that the applicant had engaged in secondary employment as a part-time mathematics teacher, which they argue breached his contract as a pastor. The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the grounds that the applicant’s conduct was misleading and breached the terms of his contract.

The employment contract required the applicant to devote his full attention during normal working hours to church duties and prohibited holding any position that would conflict with his obligations unless disclosed and approved by his employer. The respondent presented undisputed evidence that the applicant worked multiple days at various schools during his tenure, including full workdays in November 2023, without informing the respondent.

The applicant contended that his contract did not require disclosure of secondary employment, especially as some teaching days fell on his non-working days at the church. He claimed his pastoral duties involved flexible hours and that he met the required 38 hours weekly, often working evenings and weekends.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant’s failure to disclose his secondary employment and the resulting compromise of his availability during normal working hours constituted a breach of his contract. Further, the applicant’s conduct and evasive responses during proceedings undermined the trust essential to the employment relationship and rendered reinstatement inappropriate.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached its Constitution and contract by failing to follow proper procedures for termination, including holding a Special Church Members Meeting and adhering to performance review and dispute resolution clauses. The Respondent countered that such claims could not be upheld given the applicant’s own breaches of contract.  The Commissioner emphasised the equitable jurisdiction under the IR Act, allowing it to deny relief to applicants who have acted without clean hands, holding that an applicant who breaches their contract and causes loss to the employer cannot claim benefits under that contract.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant breached his contract by engaging in undisclosed secondary employment that conflicted with his pastoral duties. The Commissioner concluded that the applicant’s conduct destroyed the necessary trust and good faith with the respondent, making reinstatement unsuitable. Consequently, the unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.