CITATION : 2013 WAIRC 00344 CORAM : COMMISSIONER S J KENNER HEARD : WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : MONDAY, 10 JUNE 2013 FILE NO. : CR 65 OF 2012 BETWEEN : THE AUSTRALIAN RAIL, TRAM AND BUS INDUSTRY UNION OF EMPLOYEES, WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH Applicant AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent Catchwords : Industrial law (WA) - Termination of Employment of Union member – Whether incident sufficient to warrant termination of employment – Consideration of prior conduct and performance – Principles applied – Application dismissed Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 ss26(1)(a) and (c), 44(9) Result : Application dismissed Representation: Applicant : Mr C Fogliani Respondent : Mr D Anderson of counsel Case(s) referred to in reasons: Miles v The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Industrial Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch (1985) 65 WAIG 385; Bogunovich v Bayside Western Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 78 WAIG 3635 Reasons for Decision 1 Mr Claydon is a member of the Union and was employed by the Public Transport Authority as a Transit Officer in about mid- 2007. As a consequence of a series of incidents, Mr Claydon’s employment was terminated by the Authority on 9 November 2012 by the payment of four weeks’ salary in lieu of notice. The Union, on behalf of Mr Claydon, now challenges his dismissal and seeks his reinstatement. 2 The Authority contended that Mr Claydon’s dismissal arose from a long history of difficulties with Mr Claydon’s punctuality and his inability to work without supervision. Events that occurred on 22 July 2012, when it is alleged that Mr Claydon was not ready to commence work “fully rigged up” at his appointed start time, were the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for the Authority. This is challenged by the Union. It contended that the events of 22 July 2012, viewed in context, were relatively minor and were not sufficient to warrant Mr Claydon’s dismissal. 93 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 619 3 In determining this matter, the Commission will consider the events of 22 July 2012 and Mr Claydon’s prior conduct and performance. 22 July 2012 incident 4 On 22 July 2012 Mr Claydon was rostered on shift to commence work at 3pm at the Stirling Train Station. As a result of a customer complaint about an unrelated matter, the Authority had cause to review the CCTV footage for the station. In the course of doing so, Mr Claydon was observed entering the station office at approximately 3pm, and the Authority contended he was not ready for the commencement of his rostered shift at his designated start time. It was common ground that to be ready for a rostered shift at the designated start time, means being “rigged up” and ready to start work. For a Transit Officer, being “rigged up” means being fully dressed in uniform and wearing the accoutrement belt, but excluding the OC spray canister. The requirement to be rigged up in this fashion is to enable Transit Officers to attend to any issue as a part of their responsibilities, including assisting a member of the public who may need security assistance. 5 Also on this occasion, Mr Claydon was observed remaining in the station office for approximately 98 minutes, without the approval of the Shift Supervisor. It was also common ground in relation to this matter that the Authority’s Transit Officer Operations Manual, requires Transit Officers to seek the permission of their supervisor to remain in the office beyond 15 minutes at the start of a shift. This is because Transit Officers are required to maintain a high degree of visibility for members of the public, on train platforms and in car parks. Transit Officers are also required to greet trains on their arrival at stations. A safety presence is required for patrons during these times. 6 These requirements were referred to in the testimony of Mr Svirac, the Authority’s Transit Manager Security, Transperth Train Operations. In particular, Mr Svirac testified that punctuality is important because a Transit Officer not only needs to be able to respond to issues with members of the public, but to assist other Transit Officers. For safety reasons, Transit Officers are required to work in pairs. If, for example, Transit Officers are required on a particular train, one of the Transit Officers being late for duty may result in the train service being without security for its whole journey. 7 Because Mr Claydon remained in the office for approximately 98 minutes without approval, Mr Svirac said that the Stirling Station platform did not have the presence of two Transit Officers as required. 8 Mr Claydon did not dispute the fact that he arrived for work just before his appointed start of shift and was not fully rigged up as he was required to be. He was aware of the requirement. This was not the first occasion he had been either late for work, or arrived right on his appointed shift commencement time. There had been a long prior history of problems with Mr Claydon’s punctuality, which to his credit, Mr Claydon acknowledged in his testimony. I will deal with the prior history later in these reasons. 9 Mr Claydon testified that he had been at his nephew’s birthday party on the day in question and lost track of time. He said he arrived at work at 2:59pm in part uniform. Inside the office, Mr Claydon put on his uniform shirt and vest. He testified that he took approximately 45 to 60 seconds to do this. Mr Claydon accepted, however, that he did not have his radio and OC spray on at the time. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr Claydon agreed that he often “cut it fine” and “shaved it close to the bone” in terms of his punctuality. He was involved a number of activities outside of work: 33T 10 In terms of the allegation that he spent some 98 minutes in the station office, contrary to the manual, Mr Claydon said that he was quite tired from a broken sleep the night prior. He was also required to review an incident report he had completed from the previous night shift. While the incident report had been lodged with the Supervisor, Mr Claydon said that he was checking it to make sure all the details were correct. A copy of the incident report form was exhibit A1. The narrative of the incident is one paragraph or so in length. Most of the remaining pages in the document are crossed out as not applicable. Mr Svirac testified that such a report, from his experience, should take no longer than five to 10 minutes to review. 11 Mr Claydon testified that his Transit Officer partner was on the platform at the time that he was in the office. Furthermore, he contended that on Sundays, the only obligation on Transit Officers is to greet “football specials” and all train services after 7pm. Mr Svirac’s testimony was to the effect that all Transit Officers know, or should know, that they are required to greet train services on the platform. He emphasised the importance of Transit Officers being visible to the public and being present, with their Transit Officer partner, to attend to any issue that may arise or to provide necessary safety support. 12 Whilst the Union argued that Mr Claydon was present at work by 3pm, I do not consider that it was acceptable for a Transit Officer to arrive at work literally seconds prior to the appointed start of shift. In my view, as a matter of common sense, there is an obligation on a Transit Officer to arrive at the workplace in good time to get rigged up and to be prepared to commence duty at the appointed start of shift time. On his own admission to the Authority in the course of the investigation, Mr Claydon did not comply with this obligation. 13 Moreover, I do not accept in the circumstances, it was reasonable to spend over one and a half hours in the station office reviewing exhibit A1, which can only be regarded as a relatively brief document. The fact of Mr Claydon not obtaining the approval of his Shift Supervisor, contrary to the manual is one thing. Equally important, however, was his absence from the platform, and thus, not being able to provide appropriate safety support for his Transit Officer partner on the day in question. Such an absence from the platform and the surrounds of the station was contrary to the obligations imposed on a Transit Officer under the manual, to ensure patron safety by being present for the arrival of trains, following passengers to car parks and otherwise having visibility for patrons. Safety for both patrons, and other Transit Officers, is of paramount importance. 14 These two incidents, taken in isolation, would not be sufficient to warrant termination of employment. However, as noted at the outset of these reasons, Mr Claydon has had a lengthy history of problems with punctuality whilst employed by the Authority. I turn to consider this issue now. 620 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 W.A.I.G. Prior conduct and performance 15 It was common ground that Mr Claydon had punctuality problems and on occasion failed to attend to station duties as far back as June 2008. A detailed chronology of these matters was contained in exhibit R1, a series of internal memorandums regarding disciplinary action taken by the Authority concerning Mr Claydon’s conduct. In summary, Mr Claydon was late for duty on eight occasions in 2008 and two occasions in 2009 and 2010. He had numerous punctuality problems in 2011. He failed to attend to station duties on several occasions in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2011, Mr Claydon was further disciplined for failing to attend to station duties. 16 As a result of these breaches of discipline, Mr Claydon was informed that his employment was at risk. He was also put on two Performance Improvement Plans, one from 21 February 2011 and the second from 24 June 2011, in an endeavour to remedy these difficulties. Also, to assist with punctuality, Mr Claydon was relocated to the Perth Line Roster from 29 January 2012 to 6 May 2012, so that he would be more closely supervised. However, even while placed on the second Performance Improvement Plan, numerous instances of Mr Claydon being late for shift starts were recorded. On many occasions, despite Mr Claydon’s repeated assurances to modify his punctuality and to arrive at work at least 15 minutes prior to the start of shift in order to be ready to start work in good time, Mr Claydon still transgressed. 17 The respondent’s attempts to get Mr Claydon to modify his conduct were dealt with in some detail in the testimony of Mr Svirac. It is sufficient to observe that Mr Svirac gave Mr Claydon many opportunities to mend his ways, including several “second chances” prior to escalating the issue formally to the Authority’s Labour Relations Division to review Mr Claydon’s ongoing employment. Mr Svirac testified that Mr Claydon was a likeable employee, and he was endeavouring to get him to change his ways, to avoid the need to terminate his employment. 18 On all of the occasions when these issues were raised with him, Mr Claydon acknowledged his problem with punctuality and not attending to station duties, and undertook to do better in the future. Mr Claydon also acknowledged, to his credit, that as a consequence of his ongoing failure to comply with the obligations on him as a Transit Officer, his employment was being placed at risk. 19 It is against this background that the events of 22 July 2012, took place. It is also against this background, that the Commission must consider Mr Claydon’s claim. Conclusions 20 Whether the dismissal of an employee is harsh, oppressive or unfair, involves an assessment by the Commission as to whether the employer’s lawful right to terminate the contract of employment has been abused: Miles v The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, Industrial Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch (1985) 65 WAIG 385. It is also established that it is not for the Commission to assume the role of the manager in considering whether a dismissal is or is not unfair. The test is an objective one in accordance with the Commission’s duty under ss 26(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. 21 Moreover, contemporary standards of industrial fairness require that before an employee is dismissed, they be given fair warning that their employment is at risk. If their performance or conduct does not improve as required by the employer, an employee should be informed that termination of employment may be an outcome. Such a warning should be more than a mere general exhortation to improve and should place the employee in no doubt that their employment is at risk, unless they take appropriate remedial action: Bogunovich v Bayside Western Australia Pty Ltd (1998) 78 WAIG 3635. 22 I am not to any extent persuaded in this case, that the Authority’s dismissal of Mr Claydon was harsh, oppressive or unfair. The Authority must be able to rely on employees in important positions, such as that of Transit Officer, being reliable and punctual. Also, the Authority must be able to have confidence that Transit Officers will perform their duties properly in an unsupervised environment. Equally important, is the obligation on the Authority to ensure, as far as practicable, that the safety of patrons and fellow Transit Officers is not compromised by the failure of a Transit Officer to perform their duties to the required standard. 23 In the present case, Mr Claydon has had numerous chances to remedy his shortcomings. On each occasion he acknowledged the problem, undertook to do better, but fell short of the required standards once again. In the final analysis, the only person responsible for Mr Claydon’s dismissal was, in my view, Mr Claydon himself. It is hardly surprising that the end result of Mr Claydon’s employment history was a decision by the Authority that it could no longer give him further chances. To do so, would send the message to the Authority’s workforce generally, that it is acceptable to repeatedly fail to comply with the basic obligations of an employee to be punctual in attending for work and to perform duties as required. It is not acceptable. 24 Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case the Authority has been more than fair to Mr Claydon. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 93 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 621 2013 WAIRC 00345 DISPUTE RE ALLEGED UNFAIR DISMISSAL OF UNION MEMBER WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES THE AUSTRALIAN RAIL, TRAM AND BUS INDUSTRY UNION OF EMPLOYEES, WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH APPLICANT -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S J KENNER DATE MONDAY, 10 JUNE 2013 FILE NO/S CR 65 OF 2012 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00345 Result Application dismissed Representation Applicant Mr C Fogliani Respondent Mr D Anderson of counsel Order HAVING heard Mr C Fogliani on behalf of the applicant and Mr D Anderson of counsel on behalf of the respondent the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act, 1979 hereby orders – THAT the application be and is hereby dismissed. (Sgd.) S J KENNER, [L.S.] Commissioner. CONFERENCES—Notation of— Parties Commissioner Conference Number Dates Matter Result The Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated Commissioner Ian Johnson Department of Corrective Services Scott A/SC PSAC 9/2013 22/04/2013 Dispute re study leave Discontinued PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS— 2013 WAIRC 00400 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES EMMA JAYNE CORLEY APPLICANT -v- GAYLENE BICHENO - PEARD REAL ESTATE RESPONDENT CORAM ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT DATE FRIDAY, 5 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S B 42 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00400 Result Name of respondent amended 622 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 W.A.I.G. Order WHEREAS this is an application pursuant to Section 29(1)(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; and WHEREAS at a conference convened on the 18th day of June 2013 the applicant sought to amend the name of the respondent to "Peard and Associates Pty Ltd t/as Peard Real Estate Hillarys"; and WHEREAS the respondent agreed to the name of the respondent being amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby orders: THAT the name of the respondent in the application be amended to "Peard and Associates Pty Ltd t/as Peard Real Estate Hillarys". (Sgd.) P E SCOTT, [L.S.] Acting Senior Commissioner. 2013 WAIRC 00408 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES GREVILLE BLAKE GRIFFIN APPLICANT -v- ROBERT ROBSON RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER J L HARRISON DATE MONDAY, 8 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S B 162 OF 2008 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00408 Result Application for adjournment allowed Representation Applicant Mr G Griffin Respondent Mr R Robson Order WHEREAS this is an application pursuant to s 29(1)(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; and WHEREAS the application is set down for hearing on 16 July 2013; and WHEREAS on 1 July 2013 the respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing as one of the respondent’s main witnesses, Ms Sarah Steenson, was to travel overseas on 4 July 2013 to be with her father who is seriously ill; and WHEREAS on 3 July 2013 the applicant advised the Commission that he wishes to have his application dealt with expeditiously; and WHEREAS the respondent provided documentation confirming Ms Steenson’s overseas travel on 4 July 2013; and WHEREAS the Commission is of the view that an adjournment of the hearing set down for 16 July 2013 should be granted; and WHEREAS the Commission has concluded that the injustice to the respondent is greater than the injustice to the applicant if an adjournment is not granted (see Myers v Myers [1969] WAR 19). The Commission accepts that Ms Steenson is one of the respondent’s main witnesses and she is unavailable to attend the hearing due to her father being unwell; and FURTHER apart from a delay in the proceedings taking place the applicant has not highlighted any disadvantage he will suffer if an adjournment is granted; NOW THEREFORE the Commission pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and in particular s 27(1), hereby orders: THAT the hearing scheduled for 16 July 2013 is adjourned to a date to be fixed. (Sgd.) J L HARRISON, [L.S.] Commissioner. 93 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 623 2013 WAIRC 00419 DISPUTE RE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN EMPLOYMENT RECORDS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES THE STATE SCHOOL TEACHERS' UNION OF W.A. (INCORPORATED) APPLICANT -v- DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING RESPONDENT CORAM ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT DATE THURSDAY, 11 JULY 2013 FILE NO. CR 66 OF 2012 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00419 Result Directions issued Representation Applicant Mr S Millman and Mr D Stojanoski of counsel Respondent Mr R Bathurst of counsel Direction WHEREAS this is a matter referred for hearing and determination pursuant to Section 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; and WHEREAS at a hearing convened on the 10th day of July 2013 the parties agreed that directions should issue in respect of programming matters associated with the hearing of the jurisdictional issue, and have agreed to the terms of those directions; and WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that the issuing of the directions will assist in the conduct of the hearing of the matter; NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby directs: 1. THAT the issue of jurisdiction will be set down for one day of hearing in September 2013. 2. THAT the parties file a Statement of Agreed Facts by Friday the 26th day of July 2013. 3. THAT the respondent file and serve any witness statements upon which it intends to rely with respect to the issue of jurisdiction by Friday the 16th day of August 2013. 4. THAT the applicant file and serve any witness statements upon which it intends to rely with respect to the issue of jurisdiction by Tuesday the 30th day of August 2013. 5. THAT the respondent file and serve an Outline of Submissions by Friday the 6th day of September 2013. 6. THAT the applicant file and serve an Outline of Submissions by Friday the 13th day of September 2013. (Sgd.) P E SCOTT, [L.S.] Acting Senior Commissioner. 2013 WAIRC 00374 DISPUTE RE VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES HEALTH SERVICES UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (UNION OF WORKERS) APPLICANT -v- MINISTER FOR HEALTH RESPONDENT CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT DATE TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2013 FILE NO PSAC 18 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00374 624 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 W.A.I.G. Result Interim order issued Representation Applicant Ms C Drew and Mr C Panizza Respondent Ms J Love and Mr C Gleeson Interim Order WHEREAS this is an application made pursuant to Section 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 by which the applicant claims that its members, Mr Bruce McKeaig and Mr Benjamin Dent (the employees), employed by the respondent as Medical Imaging Technologists (MITs) at Busselton Hospital are being subjected to unfairness. This is said to be due to a lack of clarity as to the future of their positions as the respondent prepares to enter into a contract with Global Diagnostic Australia (GDA) to provide medical imaging services; and WHEREAS the Public Service Arbitrator (the Arbitrator) convened conferences on Friday the 31st day of May 2013 and Tuesday the 25th day of June 2013; and WHEREAS at the conference on the 25th day of June 2013 the Arbitrator was advised that the respondent and GDA may commence to operate under the contract as from the 1st day of July 2013, however, the contract has not yet been signed by both parties. The employees have not been advised of the options available to them, or whether their positions will be declared redundant, yet they have received offers of employment from GDA, to commence work on the 1st day of July 2013, to which offers they must respond urgently; and WHEREAS the respondent will be unable to advise the employees of their options and enable the employees to decide prior to their being required to accept or reject employment offered by GDA, particularly as some decisions regarding the employees and their positions are within the power of the Public Sector Commissioner; and WHEREAS the applicant seeks interim orders which would enable the employees to take leave without pay and to take up employment with GDA, pending the determination of the respondent's position in respect of their employment arrangements; and WHEREAS the respondent opposes the orders sought and says that the employees have offers of employment and it is for them to elect whether to take them; and WHEREAS the Arbitrator is of the opinion that it is necessary to issue interim orders to prevent deterioration of industrial relations in respect of the issues between the parties, in particular between the employees and the respondent as to the employees' working arrangements, and to protect the positions of the employees pending the respondent determining its position in respect of the employees, and to enable further conciliation or arbitration to resolve the disputes between the parties as to the appropriate treatment of the employees should their positions be abolished; and WHEREAS the Arbitrator is of the opinion that the issuing of the interim orders would encourage the parties to divulge attitudes and information which would assist in the resolution of the matter, in particular that the respondent convey to their employees, as soon as possible, its intentions regarding their future arrangements; and NOW THEREFORE, the Public Service Arbitrator, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby orders: 1. THAT the respondent grant to Mr Benjamin Dent and Mr Bruce McKeaig: (a) leave without pay for eight weeks commencing on and from the date GDA commences delivery of medical imaging technology services to Busselton Hospital; and (b) authorisation to undertake external employment with GDA, during the period of leave without pay. 2. THAT the Union has leave to apply to extend the period of leave without pay should the matter not be resolved. 3. THAT either party have leave to apply to amend or rescind these orders upon giving 24 hours' notice to the other party and to the Arbitrator. 4. THAT the parties report back to the Arbitrator in a conference to be convened in four weeks, for the purpose of further conciliation. (Sgd.) P E SCOTT, Acting Senior Commissioner, [L.S.] Public Service Arbitrator. 93 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 625 2013 WAIRC 00406 DISPUTE RE DISCIPLINARY ACTION WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (WA) INCORPORATED APPLICANT -v- THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH RESPONDENT CORAM PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATOR ACTING SENIOR COMMISSIONER P E SCOTT DATE FRIDAY, 5 JULY 2013 FILE NO. PSAC 20 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00406 Result Directions issued Representation Applicant Mr R Hooker of counsel Respondent Mr M Warner Direction WHEREAS the applicant filed an application seeking that the Public Service Arbitrator (the Arbitrator) enquire into and deal with a dispute between the parties as to the circumstances of the stand-down of Dr J Savundra and the respondent’s conduct in relation to that matter; and WHEREAS on Thursday, 4 July 2013 the Arbitrator convened a conference pursuant to s 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (the Act) for the purpose of conciliating between the parties; and WHEREAS having heard from the parties the Arbitrator formed the opinion that issuing directions requiring the respondent to formally answer the claim and to divulge information and attitudes would assist in the resolution of the matter; NOW THEREFORE, the Arbitrator, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby directs: 1. THAT the respondent provide to the applicant and to the Commission the following information in writing: a. the source of power relied on by the respondent to conduct the preliminary inquiry into Dr Savundra’s conduct; b. Dr Daly’s role in the process; c. a detailed description of the conduct said to have prompted the preliminary inquiry; d. details of the process undertaken by the respondent in coming to the conclusions set out in Professor Stokes’ letter of 6 June 2013; e. respond to the applicant’s assertions that Dr Savundra was: i. entitled to natural justice; and ii. denied natural justice; in both: i. the suspension; and ii. the making of adverse findings against him. f. whether it accepts the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to deal with the matter pursuant to s 80E of the Act or the dispute settlement procedure contained in clause 55 of the Department of Health Medical Practitioners (Metropolitan Health Services) AMA Industrial Agreement 2011. 2. THAT such information is to be provided by Friday the 19th day of July 2013. 3. THAT the parties report back to the Arbitrator at a time to be fixed in approximately 21 days. (Sgd.) P E SCOTT, Acting Senior Commissioner, [L.S.] Public Service Arbitrator. 626 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 W.A.I.G. 2013 WAIRC 00398 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES K.S. THALAKADA APPLICANT -v- SCOTT VICTOR AIROLDI KIMBERLEY LANDSCAPING AND KERBING RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S M MAYMAN DATE THURSDAY, 5 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S U 43 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00398 Result Change of respondent's name Representation Applicant Mr K S Thalakada Respondent Mr S V Airoldi Order WHEREAS this application was lodged in the Commission pursuant to s 29(1)(b)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; AND WHEREAS the matter was listed for hearing on 26 June 2013; AND WHEREAS at the hearing it became clear that the respondent had been incorrectly named; AND WHEREAS the Commission formed the view that is was appropriate to amend the respondent’s name; AND WHEREAS the parties agreed to amend the respondent’s name; NOW THEREFORE, I the undersigned, pursuant to the powers conferred on me under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby order – THAT the name Scott Victor Airoldi, Kimberley Landscaping and Kerbing be deleted and Scott Victor Airoldi, West Kimberley Landscaping and Kerbing inserted in lieu thereof. (Sgd.) S M MAYMAN, [L.S.] Commissioner. 2013 WAIRC 00414 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES RONALD MILIADO APPLICANT -v- CHAIRMAN MALCOLM SKINNER YUNGNGORA ASSOCIATION INC, NOONKANBAH RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S M MAYMAN DATE WEDNESDAY, 10 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S U 68 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00414 Result Change of respondent's name Representation Applicant Mr P Cozens (of counsel) Respondent Ms J Edinger (of counsel) Order WHEREAS this application was lodged in the Commission pursuant to s 29(1)(b)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; AND WHEREAS the matter was listed for conference on 18 June 2013; 93 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 627 AND WHEREAS at the conference it became clear that the respondent had been incorrectly named; AND WHEREAS the Commission formed the view that is was appropriate to amend the respondent’s name; AND WHEREAS the parties agreed to amend the respondent’s name; NOW THEREFORE, I the undersigned, pursuant to the powers conferred on me under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby order – THAT the name Malcolm Skinner – Chairman Yungngora Association Inc be deleted and Yungngora Association Inc inserted in lieu thereof. (Sgd.) S M MAYMAN, [L.S.] Commissioner. 2013 WAIRC 00415 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES RAYLENE MILIADO APPLICANT -v- MALCOLM SKINNER - CHAIRMAN YUNGNGORA ASSOCIATION INC RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER S M MAYMAN DATE WEDNESDAY, 10 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S U 69 OF 2013 CITATION NO. 2013 WAIRC 00415 Result Change of applicant's name Representation Applicant Mr P Cozens (of counsel) Respondent Ms J Edinger (of counsel) Order WHEREAS this application was lodged in the Commission pursuant to s 29(1)(b)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; AND WHEREAS the matter was listed for conference on 18 June 2013; AND WHEREAS at the conference it became clear that the respondent had been incorrectly named; AND WHEREAS the Commission formed the view that is was appropriate to amend the respondent’s name; AND WHEREAS the parties agreed to amend the respondent’s name; NOW THEREFORE, I the undersigned, pursuant to the powers conferred on me under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby order – THAT the name Malcolm Skinner – Chairman Yungngora Association Inc be deleted and Yungngora Association Inc inserted in lieu thereof. (Sgd.) S M MAYMAN, [L.S.] Commissioner. INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS—Notation of— Agreement Name/Number Date of Registration Parties Commissioner Result Metropolitan Cemeteries Board (Western Australia) Cemetery Employees Enterprise Agreement 2013 AG 9/2013 28/06/2013 The Western Australian Municipal, Road Boards, parks and Racecourse Employees' Union of Workers, Perth AND The Metropolitan Cemeteries Board (Not applicable) Commissioner J L Harrison Agreement registered 628 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 W.A.I.G. PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD— 2013 WAIRC 00379 APPEAL AGAINST DECISION TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT MADE ON 8 FEBRUARY 2013 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION