NOTICE is given of the Commission's Own Motion pursuant to section 47(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) to cancel the Clerks’ (Grain Handling) Award, 1977, the Child Care (Lady Gowrie Child Centre) Award, and the Children's Services Consent Award 1984.

The notice can be read here.

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission by the secretary of the The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers under section 49N(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Peter Joshua.

The notice can be read here.

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated a review of the State Research Stations, Agricultural Schools and College Award under s 40B of the Industrial Relations Act 1979. The proceedings were initiated to ensure the award does not contain wages less than the statutory minimum wage, to remove outdated and obsolete provisions, and to ensure compliance with current employment standards prescribed by the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993 and Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission provided notice of its intention to vary the Award to UnionsWA, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the public sector employer parties to the Award and the Australian Workers Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers (AWU) as the union party to the Award. The Government Sector Labour Relations Division of the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (GSLR) represented the employers who are parties to the Award.

Key amendments to the award include adjustments to classification terms to include equivalent training accreditations and removal of outdated references. The provisions for wages and allowances and leave provisions – including family and domestic violence leave and parental leave, have been updated to align with statutory minimum conditions.

The Commissioner expressed gratitude to the parties for their constructive and collaborative work on the variations, resulting in a modernisation of the award, which ensures compliance with current legislation and fairness for employees and employers.

The award variations took effect from 1 September 2025.

The decision can be read here.  

The applicant union applied to the Commission for a right of entry permit for its official, who had been employed as an Organiser with the applicant since May 2025. The organiser had previously been charged with intentionally damaging property and had pleaded guilty to a downgraded charge of wilful damage.

The applicant supported its application with statutory declarations and various documents, asserting that the union member met the criteria for a right of entry permit. The applicant highlighted the union member’s training, lack of convictions against industrial laws, and the absence of any opposition to the application. The applicant also addressed the downgraded charge, arguing that it was a minor offence and did not involve entry onto premises, fraud, dishonesty, or violence.

In reviewing whether the organiser should be issued a ROE permit, the Commission was bound by the mandatory criteria to determine whether the official is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit, and any other matters the Commission considers relevant. The decision in this matter is the first of its kind since the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (IR Act) was amended in 2024 to align with the right of entry permit provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA).

Commissioner Emmanuel considered the applicant’s submissions regarding the organiser’s character and was satisfied that he had fulfilled the fit and proper person criteria, including:

1. He had received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of an authorised representative, including completion of the ‘WA Right of Entry Permit Holder Training.’  The training and the training provider were both approved by the Work Health and Safety Commission.
2.  He had never been convicted of an offence against an industrial law.
3. He had never been convicted of an offence referred to in s 49P(2)(c) of the IR Act.
4. He had never been ordered to pay a penalty under an industrial law in relation to his actions.
5. He had not had a right of entry permit issued to him, or a right of entry for industrial or work health and safety purposes under an industrial law or work health and safety law, revoked or suspended.
6. He had not ever been disqualified under an industrial law or a work health and safety law from exercising, or applying for, a right of entry for industrial or work health and safety purposes under that law.

Commissioner Emmanuel took into account the Fair Work Commission's prior determination of the organiser’s suitability to hold a right of entry permit under the FWA, his conduct during previous entries onto premises, and the lack of opposition to the permit. The Commissioner concluded that a right of entry permit be issued without any conditions.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant applied for an external review under s 229 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WHS Act) of five improvement notices issued by an inspector. The notices addressed issues such as monitoring airborne concrete dust, traffic management, guarding on a conveyor, a data plate on a forklift, and safe working load information for trestles.

The applicant contested the validity of the improvement notices, arguing that the inspector lacked the legal authority to issue them and did not properly identify the basis for their issuance. The applicant further claimed that there were insufficient facts to support a reasonable belief that they had contravened the WHS Act and regulations as set out in the notices.

The Tribunal observed that in its application, the applicant had focused on a series of technical complaints and legal arguments, rather than on the substance of managing reasonable safety risks. This strategy meant the applicant had not negated the substantive safety concerns identified by the inspector.

The Tribunal concluded that the notices were justified and necessary to address significant safety risks, and that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the inspector’s belief was unreasonable.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that the internal review decisions the subject of applications WHST 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2024 be confirmed.

The decision can be read here.