The appellant, who employed the respondent union’s member as a prison officer, appealed against the decision of the Industrial Magistrate, who found that the appellant had contravened the Department of Justice Prison Officers’ Industrial Agreement 2020 by denying the respondent member’s paid personal leave.

The respondent union’s member was unwell for a period of several days, during which he attempted to make an appointment at his usual medical centre but could not get an appointment for at least a week. He did not attempt to secure an appointment elsewhere, and instead provided a statutory declaration to support his claim for personal leave. In the original decision, the Industrial Magistrate found that the prison officer had made reasonable attempts to obtain a medical certificate, and that the statutory declaration satisfied the minimum evidentiary requirement for a claim for personal leave.

The appellant’s appeal grounds raised several issues, including that the Industrial Magistrate erred by conflating the prison officer’s efforts to seek a medical appointment for diagnosis and treatment with steps to obtain a medical certificate. The appellant also contended that the officer had not adequately demonstrated that he was unable to obtain a medical certificate, and that the cautions issued by the Industrial Magistrate should not have been issued and had no rational basis.

The Full Bench determined that the Industrial Magistrate erred in conflating the officer’s efforts to seek treatment with his efforts to obtain a medical certificate, and that the officer’s failure to try other medical centres for an appointment were relevant in determining whether he was unable to obtain a certificate. The Full Bench determined that it was unnecessary to deal with the grounds pertaining to the caution issued by the Industrial Magistrate, and, in finding the other grounds of appeal made out, upheld the appeal and quashed the decision of the Industrial Magistrate.    

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate for the office of Secretary at the respondent union, applied to the Commission for an inquiry into the election alleging irregularities under s 66(2)(e) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA).

In her original application, the appellant claimed that the respondent did not comply with an order of the Chief Commissioner until after the election results were declared, that the postal ballot period had been reduced due to a public holiday, and that the Returning Officer was under an obligation to extend the ballot period but failed to do so. The Chief Commissioner rejected these arguments, finding that the order had no bearing on the election process, and that there was no established practice requiring the ballot period or for the period to be extended in the event of a public holiday.

The appellant appealed this decision on several grounds, including that the Chief Commissioner had erred in finding that the non-compliance order was immaterial to the election process and that there was no established practice for a 21-day ballot period or obligation for it to be extended. She also contended that the limited ballot period hindered the full and free recording of votes.

The Full Bench found that the respondent’s delay in complying with the order and the Returning Officer's conduct did not constitute irregularities in connection with the election. Finding that the Chief Commissioner had not erred in the original proceedings, the Full Bench upheld the Chief Commissioner's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant union applied for assistance to resolve a dispute with respondent regarding the eligibility of its member, a Parking and Information Officer, for severance payments after the member's job was abolished. The key questions to be answered included whether the role of Community Patrol Officer was suitable alternative employment under the City of Stirling Inside Workforce Agreement 2019, and if so, whether the member was entitled to reject the offer and be paid a redundancy payment.

Commissioner Walkington determined that the test for assessing whether an alternative position is suitable alternative employment is an objective one. The applicant argued that the role of Community Patrol Officer was not suitable alternative employment because it was significantly different from the Parking and Information Officer role, involving a broader range of duties and addressing anti-social and criminal behaviour. The respondent, however, contended that the two roles were similar in classification, salary, and status.

The Commissioner found that the role of Community Patrol Officer was not similar to the Parking and Information Officer role. The Parking and Information Officer role had a specific focus on enforcing parking rules and regulations, while the Community Patrol Officer role had a broader focus on addressing crime and antisocial behaviour, requiring interaction with people in a variety of situations. The Commissioner concluded that the scope and responsibilities of the Parking and Information Officer were less than those of the Community Patrol Officer.

Commissioner Walkington found that the respondent had repudiated the applicant member’s employment contract by failing to provide suitable alternative employment, and therefore had terminated her employment. However, the Commissioner found that a determination of redundancy entitlements fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The decision can be read here. 

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated proceedings to review and vary the Transport Workers (General) Award No. 10 of 1961 for scope, and provided notice to parties to the Award and other relevant organisations.

The variations seek to expand the scope of the Award to apply to employers in the road transport and distribution industry and their employees listed in the classification clause of the award. This includes employees in mobile food vending, making the Transport Workers (Mobile Food Vendors) Award obsolete. Further variations aim to provide clarification in relation to labour hire businesses and group training services for apprentices or trainees, and to ensure that employees covered by another State award or subject to the national industrial relations system are not subject to more than one award simultaneously.

The Minister for Industrial Relations, UnionsWA and the Transport Workers Union, Industrial Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch supported the proposed variations, and no opposition was advised. Accordingly, the Commission in Court Session ordered that the award be varied.

The decision can be read here. 

The Commission, of its own motion, initiated proceedings to vary the Hairdressers Award 1989 to reflect the deregulated nature of the hairdressing industry in Western Australia and expand the scope provision to apply to employers in the hair and beauty industry and their employees.

The variations included removing references to obsolete legislation, aligning with the federal modern award to include beauticians, and providing classifications for trainees. The Commission in Court Session received support for the proposed variations from the Minister for Industrial Relations and UnionsWA, and no opposition was advised.

The variations take effect from 1 January 2025.

The decision can be read here.