In this decision, the Full Bench considered the purpose of a hearing for ‘speaking to the minutes.’

In their earlier reasons for decision in the matter FBA 9/2024, the Full Bench dismissed the appeal made by the appellant, who had been dismissed from her role as a teacher. Being a final decision, the order of dismissal was in the form of minutes of proposed order. The parties were entitled to speak to the matters contained in these minutes to ensure the order was consistent with the Full Bench's reasons, but not to reargue the case, raise further matters or argue the decision of the Full Bench were wrong.

Despite being advised of the purpose of speaking, the appellant filed a document to reargue her appeal and contend that some aspects of the decision of the Full Bench were erroneous.

The Full Bench explained that the speaking to the minutes was not an opportunity to reargue the appeal or take issue with the decision because the appellant disagreed with it.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant has appealed the decision of her employer, the respondent, to end her acting arrangement early. The appellant, employed in a level 6 position, began an acting level 7 position for a period of 12 months. However, the respondent informed her that the acting arrangement would end approximately six months early as she was “not a good fit” for the role.

The appellant contended that the termination of her acting arrangement constituted a dismissal, arguing that the decision was harsh, oppressive, or unfair, particularly given the reason provided, which she claimed contradicted public sector employment standards. The respondent argued that the Public Service Appeal Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, asserting that the appellant was neither dismissed nor constructively dismissed, and that her employment relationship with the respondent remains ongoing.

The Appeal Board found that the termination of the acting arrangement did not amount to a dismissal, as the appellant continued to hold her substantive position. The Appeal Board noted that it could not consider the fairness of the respondent’s decision to end the acting arrangement early, given the absence of a dismissal, and dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here. 

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission by the Local Government, Racing And Cemeteries Employees Union (WA) under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for the registration of the above Agreement.

The Notice can be read here.

The appellant, a school based network support officer, appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board following her dismissal by the respondent for breach of discipline. The appellant was accused of accessing without authorisation, the Departmental emails of her subordinate on the subordinate’s work phone and sending herself one of her subordinate’s confidential emails and falsifying her timesheet to conceal her actions.

An investigation carried out by the respondent prior to the appellant’s dismissal revealed inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony and evidence, including CCTV footage showing her presence at the school at the time the email was sent. Additionally, the timesheet provided by the applicant to prove that she was not in the building at the time of the incident was found to be fabricated. The Appeal Board considered the evidence, including testimonies from various individuals and the investigation report, finding that the appellant had a history of disciplinary issues. The Appeal Board also found the appellant’s credibility had been further undermined by her dishonesty during the investigation and disciplinary process

Based on the evidence, the Appeal Board found that the complaints against the appellant were substantiated. The Appeal Board concluded that the appellant had sent the inappropriate email and had been dishonest in her attempts to cover up her actions. Accordingly, the Appeal Board found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her dismissal should be overturned and dismissed her appeal.

The decision can be read here. 

In proceedings between the applicant union and respondent employer, the respondent sought leave to be represented by counsel at the hearing relating to the matter. The applicant union objected to this representation.

The applicant opposed the respondent’s request for legal representation on the grounds that there was no serious issue of law to be argued and contended that the only issue was whether the Arbitrator should modify, nullify, or vary the respondent’s decision to cease payment to the union’s member while the member was unfit for work. The respondent asserted that the applicant’s claim contravenes a “no further claims” clause and that the Arbitrator does not have power to grant the relief sought by the applicant.

The Arbitrator found that the respondent’s submissions raise substantial questions of law, particularly regarding the “no further claims” clause and the Arbitrator’s powers under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and accordingly granted leave for the respondent to be represented by a legal practitioner.

The decision can be read here.