The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission by the Local Government, Racing And Cemeteries Employees Union (WA) under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for the registration of the above Agreement.

The Notice can be read here

The appellant, a school based network support officer, appealed to the Public Service Appeal Board following her dismissal by the respondent for breach of discipline. The appellant was accused of accessing without authorisation, the Departmental emails of her subordinate on the subordinate’s work phone and sending herself one of her subordinate’s confidential emails and falsifying her timesheet to conceal her actions.

An investigation carried out by the respondent prior to the appellant’s dismissal revealed inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony and evidence, including CCTV footage showing her presence at the school at the time the email was sent. Additionally, the timesheet provided by the applicant to prove that she was not in the building at the time of the incident was found to be fabricated. The Appeal Board considered the evidence, including testimonies from various individuals and the investigation report, finding that the appellant had a history of disciplinary issues. The Appeal Board also found the appellant’s credibility had been further undermined by her dishonesty during the investigation and disciplinary process

Based on the evidence, the Appeal Board found that the complaints against the appellant were substantiated. The Appeal Board concluded that the appellant had sent the inappropriate email and had been dishonest in her attempts to cover up her actions. Accordingly, the Appeal Board found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her dismissal should be overturned and dismissed her appeal.

The decision can be read here. 

In proceedings between the applicant union and respondent employer, the respondent sought leave to be represented by counsel at the hearing relating to the matter. The applicant union objected to this representation.

The applicant opposed the respondent’s request for legal representation on the grounds that there was no serious issue of law to be argued and contended that the only issue was whether the Arbitrator should modify, nullify, or vary the respondent’s decision to cease payment to the union’s member while the member was unfit for work. The respondent asserted that the applicant’s claim contravenes a “no further claims” clause and that the Arbitrator does not have power to grant the relief sought by the applicant.

The Arbitrator found that the respondent’s submissions raise substantial questions of law, particularly regarding the “no further claims” clause and the Arbitrator’s powers under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and accordingly granted leave for the respondent to be represented by a legal practitioner.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant union applied before the Commission in Court Session seeking declarations under s 71 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 regarding the alignment of the eligibility for membership and offices rules between the State police union and its federal branch. Due to amendments made to the registered rules of the federal branch, there was no longer an alignment between the offices in the applicant State body and its federal counterpart, raising doubts about the continued effectiveness of the section 71 certificate.

In earlier proceedings, to address the misalignment, the Chief Commissioner made an order establishing an Interim Board of Directors, allowing the State union to alter its rules to restore alignment with the federal branch. The alterations were certified by the Registrar. The applicant contended that the qualifications for membership and the offices in both organisations were substantially the same, as required by s 71(2) and s 71(4) of the Act. The Commission in Court Session considered the application and supporting evidence, including evidence from the President of both the State union and the federal branch at the time.

The Commission in Court Session was satisfied that the requirements of the Act for the declarations sought were met, finding that the rules of the State union and the federal branch regarding offices were substantially the same, and issued a declaration to enable a new s 71 certificate to be issued.

The decision can be read here