The Commission, of its own motion, has issued a State Wage Order (SWO) 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 disability operating under the Supported Wage System.

The Minister, union, industry and welfare bodies provided submissions for the consideration of the Commission in Court Session. Among these submissions, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia advocated a cautious approach to the setting of the State Minimum Wage (SMW), while UnionsWA and the Western Australian Council for Social Services proposed a significant increase of 7.359% to award wages.  The Minister supported an increase in line with the Fair Work Commission decision in the 2023-24  Annual Wage Review, which increased the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and modern award minimum wages by 3.75%.  

Additionally, all parties supported the re-alignment of the SMW from the C14 award rate to the C13 award rate, which would increase the SMW by a one off 2.3%.

The Commission in Court Session considered several key factors including the State and national economies, living standards and needs of low paid employees, and capacity of employers as a whole to bear the cost of increased wages and salaries.

The Commission in Court Session concluded that an increase in the SMW and award minimum wages was necessary to meet the needs of low-paid employees without imposing undue financial strain on employers, increasing award minimum wages by 4.0% and the SMW by 6.3%, comprising the one off increase of 2.3% followed by a 4% increase.

 The decision can be read here, and supplementary decision here.

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) appealed two procedural directions issued by the Commission which required WALGA to produce documents related to its sector survey. These directions were part of ongoing proceedings pertaining to an application to amend specific awards. WALGA’s resistance to producing the documents led to further hearings, with WASU arguing that the documents were necessary for cross-examination.

The Full Bench reviewed the appeal grounds to determine if they raised significant legal issues warranting intervention. It found that the procedural decisions did not involve jurisdictional errors significant enough to meet the public interest test for leave to appeal. The Full Bench determined that the appeal primarily challenged the outcome of the Commission’s procedural decision rather than raising any jurisdictional issue, and determined that the documents were self-evidently relevant to proceedings, therefore dismissing the appeal.

 The decision can be read here. 

The applicant, a casual bus driver employed by the respondent, contested his pay, claiming entitlement to a higher pass-through rate under the Evergreen Contract governing his route. After discovering his pay was below the pass-through rate in early 2021, the applicant sought advice from the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (PTA), which confirmed the route was covered by an Evergreen Contract and advised him to address the issue with his employer. The applicant then filed a claim for denial of contractual benefits.

Commissioner Kucera applied a five-limbed test, which examines the necessity of an implied term for the contract's effectiveness, determining that there is no implied term in the applicant’s contract of employment to pay the pass-through rate. Additionally, the Commissioner determined that jurisdiction over the contract's enforcement lay with the PTA.

Commissioner Kucera noted that any obligation to pay this rate should be resolved directly between the PTA and the respondent and recommended that the PTA review compliance with the Evergreen Contract to address and resolve any wage concerns. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

In May 2024, the respondent, WorkSafe, issued five improvement notices to the applicant, pertaining to airborne contaminants, traffic management, conveyor guarding, forklift loads, and mobile trestle loads. Initially, the compliance date was set for 5 July 2024, which was extended to 26 July 2024 following review.

The applicant sought an external review from the Tribunal and applied for a stay of the notices, arguing that the respondent lacked the authority to issue them. The respondent agreed to the stay but argued that the applicant did not meet the criteria for it.

The Tribunal determined that the stay was essential to preserve the appeal’s integrity since complying with the notices before the appeal was resolved could nullify the proceedings. The applicant had an arguable case, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay due to potential costs and risks of immediate compliance.

The Tribunal granted the stay and ordered that the substantive applications be heard together.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, dismissed by the respondent after being convicted of dangerous driving resulting in death and exceeding the legal alcohol limit, appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board. He sought to overturn the dismissal, be reinstated, receive full entitlements, and have his employment continuity recognised, arguing that the dismissal was unfair as it occurred after his conviction but before the end of his criminal proceedings.

The respondent applied to have the appeal dismissed, citing that reinstatement was impractical due to the appellant's imprisonment and other validity issues. The appellant had been sentenced to four years in prison.

The Board determined that the appellant's convictions were 'serious offences' under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which justified the dismissal. Given that the Board can only order reinstatement and that reinstatement was not feasible due to the appellant's imprisonment, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.