The applicant sought unpaid salary, a profit share arrangement, and accrued annual leave from the respondent, her employer. Despite notifications and opportunities for the respondent to respond, the employer did not participate in the proceedings. Commissioner Walkington, satisfied with a reasonable opportunity had been given, proceeded in the absence of Wild Squeeze.

The applicant, initially a barista, was promoted to Café Manager with an agreed-upon increase in pay. Disputes arose over unpaid wages, accrued leave, and expenses. The evidence, including email exchanges, supported the applicant’s claim for unpaid wages, with Commissioner Walkington finding her to be a full-time employee. Although a payment was made by the employer, a balance for unpaid wages remained, and Commissioner Walkington ordered the outstanding amount.

Regarding the profit share claim, Commissioner Walkington determined that the Christmas card from the respondent to the applicant, in which the respondent referred to a 10% profit share, did not meet the criteria for a binding contract variation. The terms of the profit share arrangement were deemed uncertain, and the lack of evidence on the Café's profit further hindered finding for the applicant. Consequently, Commissioner Walkington did not find a contractual benefit or entitlement denied in the profit share claim.

In conclusion, Commissioner Walkington ordered the respondent to pay the balance of unpaid wages to the applicant but dismissed the profit share claim due to insufficient evidence of a binding contract variation.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant, a former Recruitment Manager for the Reilly Trust, filed an unfair dismissal application after her dismissal in November 2021. Despite being initially represented, the applicant faced challenges, including a withdrawal of representation and communication issues with the Commission. The respondent objected to the application, citing a delay of 81 days after her dismissal.

Commissioner Walkington and her Chambers staff made several attempts to contact the applicant regarding her application, including emails, voicemails, and notifications of deadlines. However, the applicant did not respond or attend the show cause hearing. Commissioner Walkington emphasised the importance of diligence in prosecuting proceedings and the applicant’s responsibility to adhere to deadlines. Given the significant delay and the lack of a satisfactory explanation, the Commission exercised its powers under s 27(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) and ordered the dismissal of the applicant’s application.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant, a Level 4 Senior Community Engagement Officer (SCEO) with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Department of Justice, was dismissed for non-compliance with a vaccination order issued by the Director General. This order stemmed from a 2021 restructure, which incorporated travel expectations linked to Chief Health Officer (CHO) Directions related to COVID-19 vaccination. The applicant contended that her role did not inherently involve travel to remote communities, and the Employer Direction was not applicable.

The Public Service Appeal Board dismissed the application, stating that the Employer Direction was lawful, fell within the employment contract’s scope, and was reasonable. The Board emphasised that the applicant’s role necessitated attendance at schools and hospitals, requiring compliance with CHO Directions related to vaccination. Non-compliance constituted a breach of discipline. The dismissal was deemed fair, considering the significance of travel in her role, her inability to perform duties due to non-compliance, and the absence of evidence indicating unfair treatment compared to other government employees.

Despite acknowledging the impact of dismissal on the applicant, the Board concluded that the decision was not harsh, oppressive, or unjust. The findings reinforced the legality and reasonableness of the Employer Direction, aligning it with the duties outlined in the employment contract and CHO Directions. The applicant’s refusal to comply with vaccination requirements, essential for fulfilling her responsibilities, justified the disciplinary action taken by the Director General.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant demonstrated a consistent lack of commitment to advancing his claim, evidenced by his non-attendance at multiple conciliation conferences, a directions hearing, and a failure to respond to Commission communications. This behaviour obstructed the expeditious resolution of his claim and impeded the Commission’s operational efficiency. Consequently, Senior Commissioner Cosentino issued an order compelling him to show cause for not dismissing his claim.

Initially filing his claim on 14 February 2023, alleging the denial of a contractual benefit by his former employer, the applicant’s lack of engagement became apparent during the scheduled conciliation conferences. Despite agreeing to a rescheduled date of 4 April 2023, he failed to attend, did not respond to the Commission’s inquiries, and failed to comply with directives to explain his absence. Subsequently, a directions hearing was scheduled for 26 April 2023, during which the applicant participated by phone but displayed reluctance to attend in person, citing potential financial loss. Another conciliation conference was set for 15 May 2023, which the applicant failed to attend without notice or explanation.

Due to the applicant’s persistent non-engagement and failure to respond to orders, Senior Commissioner Cosentino dismissed the claim. The decision was grounded in the understanding that allowing the claim to proceed would not be in the public interest, as it would entail a wasteful allocation of resources and cause undue inconvenience to the respondent. Senior Commissioner Cosentino emphasised the importance of parties actively participating in proceedings to ensure the efficient resolution of matters and maintain public confidence in the Commission’s functions. In summary, the applicant’s lack of diligence and participation led to the dismissal of his claim based on its adverse impact on the Commission’s ability to effectively perform its functions.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant applied for an enterprise order under s 42I of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). The application was made because the respondent declined to bargain for an industrial agreement with the Trust, which was establishing a new security services business in Western Australia called Applied Security Force.

The applicant sought the enterprise order to gain flexibilities unavailable under the Security Officers’ Award. Specifically, it aimed to “flatten out” pay rates, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance competitiveness in tendering. The applicant proposed higher base rates in exchange for reduced overtime and penalty rates. However, the respondent opposed the application.

The key issue was whether the Trust qualified as an ‘employer’ when it gave notice to initiate bargaining. The definition of ‘employer’ in the Act was central to this dispute. The applicant argued that having written employment contracts and employing Mr Kourtesis satisfied the definition, while the respondent contended that active engagement of employees in substantive work was essential.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino ultimately decided not to issue an enterprise order. The decision rested on the finding that the Trust was not an ‘employer’ at the relevant time. The evidence did not establish that the Trust had employed Mr Kourtesis, and the employment contracts lacked clarity, creating uncertainty and incompleteness.

Furthermore, Senior Commissioner Cosentino assessed the Trust’s interests and needs for the enterprise order. The Trust’s justifications related to flexibility, confidence in forecasting labour costs, and competition were found to be inadequately supported. There was no evidence that the proposed order would improve productivity or efficiency. Senior Commissioner Cosentino also considered the interests of employees, finding that the proposed order did not guarantee better take-home pay, lacked transparency, and did not provide fair compensation for unsociable hours.

In summary, Senior Commissioner Cosentino dismissed the application for an enterprise order, emphasising the applicant’s failure to meet the statutory criteria and insufficient evidence supporting its claims.

The decision can be read here.