The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, claiming that she was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The applicant, who lives with disabilities, was employed as a clerk at the respondent’s cleaning service from March 2022. Initially engaged part-time, she transitioned to full-time employment in February 2023, providing administrative support for cleaning operations, particularly for clients under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In April 2024, the respondent cited financial difficulties and proposed a reduction in the applicant’s working hours. The applicant agreed to the reduced hours. However, while on pre-approved annual leave, she received a new contract reflecting the change, including a lower pay rate. The respondent subsequently withdrew the offer of continued employment, effectively terminating the applicant’s employment.

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal, citing the abrupt withdrawal of employment, lack of consultation, and absence of proper notice or severance pay. She emphasised the impact on her wellbeing and future employment prospects. The respondent argued that the dismissal constituted a genuine redundancy necessitated by business cost-cutting, asserting that the business employed fewer than 15 staff and was therefore not obliged to pay redundancy entitlements. The respondent further stated that the applicant’s administrative duties were now shared between the respondent and her son.

Commissioner Walkington found on the evidence presented that the respondent failed to communicate the redundancy decision clearly, did not provide written notice, and maintained a facade of ongoing employment by offering a part-time contract before abruptly withdrawing it. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s actions did not meet the procedural fairness requirements for redundancy, including consultation, notice, and severance payment obligations. The respondent’s assertion regarding employee headcount was found to be incorrect, as casual employees should have been included, bringing the total to 18.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that, even if the termination was a genuine redundancy, the manner in which it was affected was harsh and unfair. The respondent failed to communicate the decision adequately, did not consult or consider alternatives, and did not provide the required notice or severance payment. The abrupt withdrawal of employment, especially given the applicant’s personal circumstances and challenges in securing alternative employment, rendered the dismissal harsh and unfair. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the applicant was unfairly dismissed.

The decision can be read here.  

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission in 2021 seeking compensation for her dismissal from the respondent.  The respondent denied that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and also initially objected to the jurisdiction of the commission on the basis that it was a National System Employer.  The respondent later withdrew the objection to jurisdictional grounds, and the matter was the subject of conciliation proceedings.  Following the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for hearing and determination.

Over the course of several months in 2022, the Commission issued directions for filing witness statements and evidence, setting deadlines and scheduled a hearing to proceed with the matter. Despite multiple reminders and opportunities, the applicant failed to file witness statements, respond to communication regarding her intention to proceed, or attend scheduled hearings. In early 2025 the Commission contacted the parties, informing the applicant that she may discontinue her matter or appear at a hearing to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. 

The applicant did not attend the hearing despite proper notification, and as such Commissioner Walkington considered the applicant had failed to progress her application and did not have sufficient interest in the matter. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

NOTICE is given that an application has been made to the Commission in Court Session by UnionsWA Incorporated under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). The application by UnionsWA is for the variation of the Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards General Order [2025] WAIRC 00136, (2025) 105 WAIG 419 by adding the public sector awards listed in the schedule to the “Awards List” of the General Order. The effect of the variation is to extend the minimum casual loading of 25 per cent of the ordinary rate of the relevant classification of the award, to all public sector awards.

The notice can be read here.

Minimum Casual Loading Rate for Specified Awards General Order [2025] WAIRC 00136, (2025) 105 WAIG 419

The applicant, who was employed as a pastor for the respondent in 2023, filed an unfair dismissal claim in the Commission 29 days after the prescribed time limit under s 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act). The respondent discovered that the applicant had engaged in secondary employment as a part-time mathematics teacher, which they argue breached his contract as a pastor. The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the grounds that the applicant’s conduct was misleading and breached the terms of his contract.

The employment contract required the applicant to devote his full attention during normal working hours to church duties and prohibited holding any position that would conflict with his obligations unless disclosed and approved by his employer. The respondent presented undisputed evidence that the applicant worked multiple days at various schools during his tenure, including full workdays in November 2023, without informing the respondent.

The applicant contended that his contract did not require disclosure of secondary employment, especially as some teaching days fell on his non-working days at the church. He claimed his pastoral duties involved flexible hours and that he met the required 38 hours weekly, often working evenings and weekends.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant’s failure to disclose his secondary employment and the resulting compromise of his availability during normal working hours constituted a breach of his contract. Further, the applicant’s conduct and evasive responses during proceedings undermined the trust essential to the employment relationship and rendered reinstatement inappropriate.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached its Constitution and contract by failing to follow proper procedures for termination, including holding a Special Church Members Meeting and adhering to performance review and dispute resolution clauses. The Respondent countered that such claims could not be upheld given the applicant’s own breaches of contract.  The Commissioner emphasised the equitable jurisdiction under the IR Act, allowing it to deny relief to applicants who have acted without clean hands, holding that an applicant who breaches their contract and causes loss to the employer cannot claim benefits under that contract.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant breached his contract by engaging in undisclosed secondary employment that conflicted with his pastoral duties. The Commissioner concluded that the applicant’s conduct destroyed the necessary trust and good faith with the respondent, making reinstatement unsuitable. Consequently, the unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here. 

The appellant, who was a Senior Constable with 16 years of service, was removed from his position following a domestic violence incident in August 2024. The respondent initiated loss of confidence proceedings, leading to the appellant's removal in April 2025 due to concerns about his integrity and conduct. The appellant appealed against his removal, seeking either reinstatement, or alternatively, compensation.

Two interlocutory matters were considered by the Commission. The first was an application by the appellant to amend his notice of appeal to recast his grounds of appeal. The application to amend the notice of appeal was not opposed by the respondent, and the Commission, at the hearing of the interlocutory hearings, granted the appellant leave to do so.

The second interlocutory matter was an application to tender new evidence under s 33R of the Police Act 1892 (WA), specifically witness statements from the appellant’s treating psychiatrist and a witness to the domestic violence incident.

In his application to tender new evidence, the appellant argued that the witness statement should be allowed as new evidence as it could show that the respondent acted on incomplete information at the time of his removal. The appellant also contended that the statement would demonstrate the willingness of the witness to cooperate with the investigation and provide evidence of his symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The Commission refused leave to admit the witness statement primarily because it was not contemporaneous with the relevant events and did not add materially new information. The statement was made over a year after the incident in question, whereas the witness had already made statements on the night of the incident, which were recorded in body-worn camera footage and included in earlier evidence. The Commission also found that the substance of the new witness statement was broadly consistent with this existing material, particularly regarding the appellant’s demeanour and symptoms, and therefore was not likely to show that the respondent acted on wrong or mistaken information, nor was it likely to have materially affected the decision to remove the appellant.

The Commission granted leave for the psychiatrist’s statement to be tendered as new evidence. This evidence was considered relevant and admissible because it addressed the appellant’s medical condition at the time of the incident and could potentially affect the assessment of the appellant’s conduct and the respondent’s decision to remove him.

The decision can be read here.