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. 

The Commission, under s 40B of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), implemented several variations to the Hairdressers Award 1989 to align it with contemporary standards, remove obsolete provisions, and ensure fairness for hair dressing employees in Western Australia.

Key changes included adjustments to wages, leave entitlements, and definitions, as well as the inclusion of provisions covering trainees and related to domestic violence leave.

Background

The Commission provided notice of its intention to vary the Award to UnionsWA, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and each of the parties to the Award being the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association of Western Australia (SDA), the Master Hairdressers’ Industrial Union of Employers of W.A. (MHA) and all named individual employers.

The Commission subsequently convened a conference to seek input from interested parties about the issues with the Award, and the appropriate drafting revisions to address them. Representatives for the Minister, the MHA, the SDA, and the AWU attended the conference.

The Commission then published notice of proposed variations to the Award, pursuant to s 40B(2). A hearing was convened for the purpose of affording interested persons an opportunity to be heard in relation to those proposed variations.

Findings

The Commission made the following specific variations to modernise and align the Award with current legislation and industrial practices while ensuring clarity and consistency in its provisions.

Title of the Award: The title of the Award was updated to remove the year of the Award, following current naming practices for awards.

1.  Arrangement Clause: Like clauses have been grouped together under functional headings.
2. Term Clause: The term clause, which defined the duration of the Award, was deleted as it was no longer relevant.
3.  Definitions Clause: The definitions clause was renumbered from clause 5 to clause 4. Several definitions updated or contemporised and new definitions added. Irrelevant definitions removed, and classifications moved to Schedule C.
4. Engagement: Previous clause 12 covering contracts of employment and termination has been split into clause 5 and clause 6.
5. Hours: Hours of work were previously covered in clause 6. Under new clause 7, the provisions have been updated in accordance with the Retail Trading Hours Act 1987 (WA).
6. Display of Rosters: Previous clause 7 covering display of rosters has been moved to clause 8 and now requires rosters to cover the period of Monday to Sunday (rather than Monday to Saturday).
7. Overtime: Wording of this clause updated for clarity, and previous sub-clause (1)(a) has been removed due to it being confusing, inaccurate, and out of date.
8. Meal times and break periods: Clause 10 covers meal time and replaces previous clause 15. The Clause has been modernised based on language used in the recently varied Shop and Ware Warehouse (Wholesale and Retail Establishments) Award 1977 (SWA)
9. Long Service Leave: Clause 14 covers Long Service Leave and replaces previous clause 21. Provisions varied to refer to the provisions of the Long Service Leave Act 1958 (WA)
10. Wages: A number of changes have been made to provisions pertaining to wages, including addition of new classifications in the Award, removal of references to the historical incorporation of loading in lieu of penalties, movement of penalty rates now set out in a table, changes to outdated language, and removal of provisions relating to a four-year apprenticeship no longer available in hairdressing.
11. Traineeships: A new clause covering traineeships has been added to the Award, directly incorporating minimum pay and conditions applying to trainees in the national industrial relations system.
12. Time and Wages Record: Clause 23 replaces previous clause 17 and updates provisions previously inconsistent with statutory requirements under the IR Act and LSL Act.
13. Other Variations: Various substitutions and variations have been made throughout the Award to improve clarity without altering the substantive operation of the clauses.

The Commission made the further variations to ensure compliance with the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993 (WA) (MCEA).

1. Family and Domestic Violence Leave: A new clause was added to address Family and Domestic Violence Leave.
2. Termination of Employment: provisions requiring an employee to forfeit pay in lieu of giving notice have been removed as they may be incompatible with the MCEA.
3. Public Holidays: Clause 11 replaces the previous clause 9 and is updated to add Easter Sunday as a public holiday under the Award, change the name of Foundation Day to Western Australia Day, and remove provisions enabling an employee to forfeit wages where the employee has been absent without leave on the day before or after a public holiday, as the provision was inconsistent with, and less favourable than, the MCEA.
4. Annual Leave: Clause 12 replaces the previous clause 10 and provisions regarding annual leave were updated to align with the MCEA.
5. Personal Leave: Clause 13 replaces the previous clause 14 and replaces references to “sick pay” and “sick leave” with “personal leave” reflecting the provisions of the MCEA. The provisions of this clause have also been simplified by incorporating personal leave provisions of the MCEA, and evidentiary requirements for applications for personal leave aligned with the MCEA.
6. Parental Leave: New clause 15 makes provisions for parental leave to be provided in accordance with the FW Act and the MCEA.
7. Bereavement Leave: Clause 16 replaces the previous clause 28 – Compassionate Leave. The clause has been updated to refer to the provisions of the MCEA.

The decision can be read here. 

The respondent union, in relation to ongoing proceedings, applied for an order under r 21 of the Industrial Relations Commission Regulations 2005 for the production of documents by the applicant union and another union the LGRCEU, as intervenor, and the employer body WALGA, as intervenor.  The documents requested included all communications between the applicant, the WALGA and the LGRCEU, concerning the proceedings or evidence given or expected to be given in these proceedings. The basis for the application was an assertion of collusion.

The application was opposed.  It was contended that such communications could date back many months and most or all communications would be of a privileged nature.  It was also contended that the requested order would significantly delay proceedings.

The Commission in Court Session determined that there was not any significant basis for an order for production of documents to be made involving the LGRCEU, or for an order to produce all documents, finding that such an order was too broad in scope. The Commission did, however, determine that it would be appropriate to make more limited orders in this matter. These orders included the production of non-privileged documents related to the evidence in proceedings and that any claim of legal professional privilege be the subject of affidavit evidence.

The decision can be read here.