The application made by the Registrar under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), sought orders for the establishment of an interim committee of management for the respondent union.  The application was based on concerns that the s71 certificate issued previously issued to the respondent was no longer effective, impacting the validity of the election of officeholders in the respondent organisation.  Under usual procedures, an interim committee is established to manage the organisation’s affairs and amend the rules if necessary.

Two key events led to the current matter.  First, was an alteration in rules to the federal branch of the respondent union, which abolished one of the two existing Assistant Secretary offices.  This change created an inconsistency between the respondent and its federal counterpart.  Second, by a Determination made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an administrator was subsequently appointed to manage the operations of the federal union, including the federal branch, which had the effect, amongst others, of temporarily divesting the officeholders of their powers in favour of the administrator.

The Registrar contended that due to these changes, the s 71 certificate was rendered ineffective, while emphasising the importance of maintaining democratic control and process within the organisation.  The respondent argued that the certificate remained valid and effective, asserting that the proper course would be to adjust its rules to reflect changes made to the federal counterpart, rather than establish an interim committee.

Consideration was also given to the Determination, under which the federal counterpart operates, highlighting that while the powers of officeholders are temporarily divested, their offices remain intact.

Chief Commissioner Kenner concluded that the s 71 certificate remains legally effective and that the respondent union can continue functioning without the need for an interim committee.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The application for altering the respondent's rules is to proceed as planned, reflecting the ongoing operation of the certificate despite the recent changes in the federal branch. 

The decision 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 Ciaran Barrett. 

The Notice can be read here.

The Commission, of its own motion, has issued its decision in the State Wage order proceedings to adjust the minimum wage for employees under the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993, award minimum wages, and minimum rates of pay for employees with a disability operating under the Supported Wage System.

The Minister for Industrial Relations, and union, industry, and welfare bodies made submissions to the Commission in Court Session.  Among these submissions, UnionsWA proposed an increase of 4.5% to award wages and an increase in the State Minimum Wage of $41.34 per week.  The Western Australian Council of Social Service Inc proposed an increase of 4.5%.  The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (Inc) proposed an increase of 2.5%.  The Minister for Industrial Relations did not specify an amount, but supported an increase of no less than the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review 2024-25 increase of 3.5%.  The Western Australian Local Government Association contended that any increase in wages should be fair, while also taking into consideration the current costs environment for Local Governments.

As in previous years, the cost of living was a major consideration when determining the State Minimum Award Wage and an increase in minimum award wages.  Recent high inflation and price increases in food and housing in particular, have seen a reduction in spending power for minimum wage earners.  The Commission also recognised the rising costs for small businesses.  Other key factors, including the State and national economies, living standards, the needs of low paid employees and the capacity of employers to bear the cost of increased wages, were all taken into consideration by the Commission in Court Session.

After considering relevant factors, the Commission in Court Session increased the State Minimum Wage and minimum award rates of pay by 3.75%, with proportionate increases for juniors, apprentices, and trainees.  This will lift the State Minimum Wage to $953 per week. This increase will take effect from 1 July 2025.

The decision can be read here. 

The General Order can be read here.

The Commission in Court Session will hand down its decision in the 2025 State Wage Case at 2:30 PM (AWST) on Thursday, 12 June 2025. 

Watch below or click here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings to register the proposed industrial agreement, supported by the two respondent unions. Following the initial application an intervening union sought to intervene the registration process. While the intervening union was part of the negotiations to draft the proposed agreement, it was neither a signatory to nor named as a party to the proposed agreement. The application to intervene sought to make submissions on whether the agreement should be registered, and if the intervening union should also be included as a party to the proposed agreement.  

Negotiations for the proposed agreement followed State legislative changes, in which the local government industry transitioned to the State industrial relations system, allowing pre-existing agreements to continue until renewed or replaced. During negotiations, the intervening union raised concerns about being included as a party to the proposed agreement, and representation of its members. These issues were not resolved, however the parties reached consensus on other terms, including pay rates and classification structures. 

Simultaneously, the intervening union and respondent unions were involved in proceedings under s 72A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, concerning representation rights of the unions concerning local government employees. The applicant’s position on the intervening union’s inclusion as a party to the proposed agreement is contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings.

The intervening union’s intervention application raised several claims, including the argument that the IR Act promotes goodwill and fair bargaining, and that the applicant misled it regarding its inclusion in the proposed agreement, which affected their participation in negotiations.

The applicant argued that the intervening union failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the application and that the claims of misrepresentation of members were unsubstantiated. The applicant also emphasises the intervening union’s involvement in the negotiations was conditional on the resolution of the representation issue in the s 72A proceedings.

Commissioner Kucera upheld the application for leave to intervene, allowing the intervening union to argue its case regarding the proposed agreement’s validity and its potential inclusion as a party. The Commissioner determined that a conciliation conference be scheduled to facilitate discussions on the substantive application. 
 
The decision can be read here.