In proceedings in an unfair dismissal claim, the applicant filed an application to amend one of the forms attached to the unfair dismissal claim. The applicant contended that leave to amend the application should be granted because of the positions that the Commission and parties took at the conference regarding the amendment of the application, because the amendments are made early in the proceedings and unlikely to prejudice the respondent, and that the amendments are consistent with the purpose and effect of provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (The Act).

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing that the applicant provided no reasons for the need to amend, relied on confidential communications from the conciliation conference, and that the proposed amendments were vague and inconsistent with the applicant's previous statements. The respondent also contended that they would face prejudice if the amendment were granted, including the need to draft and file an amended response, and the ambiguity of the proposed amended claim. 

Commissioner Tsang agreed with the respondent’s submission that the contents of the conciliation conference were private and confidential, and conducted on a without prejudice basis, thus could not be relied on as grounds for granting leave to amend the form. The Commissioner determined further that lack of prejudice to the respondent would not be a sufficient reason to grant the application to amend, and that in any case she accepted the respondent’s assertions that the amendment would cause prejudice. Finally, regarding the provisions of the Act, the Commissioner found that while the Commission may allow the amendment, they do not oblige the Commission to do so, and the applicant failed to provide evidence to support why the Commission should grant leave to amend the form. For these reasons, Commissioner Tsang dismissed the application to amend.

The decision can be read here.

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission by the Pat Thomas House Inc. under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for the registration of the above Agreement.

The Notice can be read here.

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission by the Arts and Culture Trust under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for the registration of the above Agreement.

The Notice can be read here.

Practice Note 1 of 2025 is issued by The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission for the purpose of informing employees, employers and relevant registered organisations of the process required to be undertaken when seeking the reclassification of a position within the public sector.

In accordance with s 113(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 and reg 39(3) of the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005, Practice Note 1 of 2025 is effective 14 days after the date of its publication in the Western Australian Industrial Gazette, being 26 February 2025 and remains in force until such time as it is replaced.

Please click here to view the Practice Note.

All the Commission's Practice Notes can be found here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings seeking declarations under ss 71(2) and (4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (the Act) that the Rules of the applicant and its federal counterpart regarding qualifications of persons for membership and offices are deemed to be the same and sought a fresh s 71(5) certificate from the Registrar.

These proceedings follow a lengthy series of other matters that commenced in 2018 when the applicant union altered its rules in relation to its name and subsequently applied for a fresh s71 certificate.   In those proceedings, the Full Bench raised some concerns as to whether the office of Assistant Secretary in the applicant and of Branch Assistant Secretary in its federal counterpart could be considered to be corresponding offices. Following this, orders were made appointing an interim committee of management for the applicant.

In these proceedings, the Commission in Court Session examined the functions and powers of the offices and the similarity of their rules to determine if there was a sufficient degree of similarity between the respective offices and rules. The Commission in Court Session determined that while there were some minor differences in exclusions, persons eligible for membership in the applicant union would also be eligible for membership in its federal counterpart. Comparing the functions and powers of the respective offices, the Commission was satisfied that for each office in the applicant union, there was a corresponding office in the federal branch with sufficiently similar powers and duties. The Commission in Court Session was satisfied that the relevant conditions were met under ss 71(2) and (4) of the Act and made declarations accordingly.

The decision can be read here.