Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Union of Workers v Minister for Corrective Services

[2015] WAIRC 367 Single Commissioner (WAIRC) 2015-05-08 File: C 22/2014
Source
Commissioner Kenner
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Union of Workers (Western Australian Prison Officers' Union of Workers)
Respondent: Minister for Corrective Services

Ratio

In a s 44 compulsory conference dispute concerning pro rata long service leave under the Department of Corrective Services Prison Officers' Enterprise Agreement 2013, the Commission recommended that Officer Brook was entitled to four weeks pro rata long service leave calculated under cl 120.1 of the Agreement, rejecting the Department's contention that Implementation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes to the Public Service and Government Officers General Agreement 2011 applied to limit the entitlement. The Commission issued a recommendation (not a binding determination) in the interests of progress on this and similar matters.

Outcome

Resolved other

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Key facts · 6

  • Officer Brook applied for pro rata long service leave on 5 December 2013
  • Officer Brook satisfied the requirements of cl 120.1 of the Enterprise Agreement 2013 by being within seven years of preservation age
  • The application was approved by the Superintendent of his Prison on 17 December 2013
  • The Union claimed Officer Brook was entitled to four weeks of leave based on the formula in cl 120.1
  • The Department disputed the entitlement, contending that cl 120.1 should be read with the Implementation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes for the Public Service and Government Officers General Agreement 2011, which would result in a lesser benefit
  • The parties had attempted to resolve the matter through discussion following adjournment

Factors

For
  • The plain language of cl 120.1 of the Enterprise Agreement 2013 supported the four-week entitlement
  • Officer Brook satisfied all requirements under cl 120.1 for the pro rata benefit
Against
  • The Department argued that Implementation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes to the Public Service and Government Officers General Agreement 2011 should apply to limit the entitlement

Legislation referenced

  • Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s44
  • Department of Corrective Services Prison Officers' Enterprise Agreement 2013 cl 120, 120.1

Concept tags · 6

[P]s44 referral of industrial matter (WA) [P]Long service leave (WA) [S]Award interpretation — principles [S]Enterprise agreement variation [S]Registered industrial agreement (WA) [M]Conciliation and arbitration powers

Principles · 2

articulates para ?
Where an industrial agreement contains express provisions governing entitlement to long service leave, those provisions should be given their ordinary meaning unless constrained by explicit language referring to external guidelines or notes.
articulates para ?
Implementation guidelines and explanatory notes applicable to one industrial agreement do not automatically apply to constrain the plain language interpretation of clauses in a different enterprise agreement unless expressly incorporated.
Archived text (461 words)
DISPUTE RE ENTITLEMENT OF PRO RATA LONG SERVICE LEAVE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES The Western Australian Prison Officers' Union of Workers APPLICANT -v- Minister for Corrective Services RESPONDENT CORAM Commissioner S J Kenner DATE Friday, 8 May 2015 FILE NO. C 22 OF 2014 CITATION NO. 2015 WAIRC 00367 Result Recommendation issued Representation Applicant Ms R Marton and with her Mr J Welch and Ms S van der Merwe Respondent Ms I Rizmanoska and with her Mr N Cinquina Recommendation WHEREAS by an application filed on 18 June 2014 the Union applied for a compulsory conference under s 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 in relation to Prison Officer Brook’s entitlement to pro rata long service leave under cl 120 of the Department of Corrective Services Prison Officers’ Enterprise Agreement 2013; AND WHEREAS a s 44 compulsory conference was listed by the Commission on 5 September 2014 in order to discuss the matters in dispute. However, prior to the conference the parties requested and were granted an adjournment, to pursue discussions amongst themselves; AND WHEREAS the conference was re-listed on 8 May 2015 as the parties had not been able to resolve the matters in dispute; AND WHEREAS the Union informed the Commission that Officer Brook applied for pro-rata long service leave on 5 December 2013. He satisfied the requirements of cl 120.1 of the Agreement, as being within seven years of preservation age and his application was approved by the Superintendent of his Prison on 17 December 2013. According to the Union, Officer Brook is entitled to four weeks of leave, based on the formula contained in cl 120.1 of the Agreement; AND WHEREAS the Department disputed Officer Brook’s entitlement on the basis that cl 120.1 should be read with the Implementation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes for the Public Service and Government Officers General Agreement 2011, applying to its public sector workforce generally, which leads to a lesser benefit than claimed by Officer Brook; AND WHEREAS the Commission has considered the matters in dispute and believes that it would be in the interests of the progress of the matter and similar matters in the future that a recommendation is made; NOW THEREFORE the Commission pursuant to the powers conferred on it under s 44 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1979, hereby recommends – (1) THAT Officer Brook is paid four weeks pro rata long service leave as at the date of his application. (2) THAT the parties confer in relation to the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Department of Corrective Services Prison Officers’ Enterprise Agreement 2013 to which the Department contends the Implementation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes for the Public Service and Government Officers General Agreement 2011 may have application. COMMISSIONER S J KENNER