The word 'misconduct' in s80 Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA) is not a defined term and should be given its ordinary meaning: conduct which is improper or immoral by the standards of ordinary people.

Off-duty misconduct may amount to a breach of discipline if it has a relevant connection to the public sector employment, or if it is relevant to the office itself, to the standing of the officer within that office, and to their perceived capacity to discharge the functions of the office.

An employee who conducts themselves in a manner that tends to undermine their capacity to perform their duties or diminish their status and authority such that it affects fitness to discharge the duties of their office commits misconduct, even if in private life.

There is no rule of law providing double jeopardy protection that would bar disciplinary proceedings arising from conduct for which criminal proceedings were withdrawn or result in acquittal.

If an employer suspects there may have been a breach of discipline with reasonable grounds, the employer ought to be allowed to carry out its statutory duty to investigate; unless the allegations are baseless on their face, the Commission should not intervene.

The period of notice to be given to a person dismissed as a disciplinary action is not part of the disciplinary process, and no decision is made under s78 and s82A about the period of notice. It is not a matter referred to in s78(1)(b) of the Public Sector Management Act and not a matter referred to in s80I(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act.

Where the Public Sector Management Act provides for disciplinary action including dismissal, but the Board found no breach of discipline, maintaining the dismissal while quashing only the adjustment to notice is inherently unfair and the invalid adjustment cannot be separated from the decision refusing reinstatement.

Valid consideration for a settlement agreement can include a promise by an employer to allow an employee to act in higher positions from an earlier date than originally imposed, where the employer is not legally obligated to allow such acting appointments under the applicable industrial agreement and standards.

The Commissioner is entitled to exercise the managerial discretion to remove a member promptly upon loss of confidence, and is not obliged by procedural fairness to suspend or adjourn the removal action process pending determination of related criminal charges, even where the member asserts risk to privilege against self-incrimination.

An employee's personal stress or dissatisfaction with their job duties does not justify breaching duties of good faith and fidelity by attacking the employer's organisation; alternative remedies such as seeking transfer or external employment exist.

A matter relating to the filling of a vacancy by way of recruitment, selection or appointment falls within the scope of a prescribed Public Sector Standard, and the jurisdictional exclusion in s23(2a) applies to the whole of that 'matter', regardless of the precise allegations of unfairness or penalty which may be made in respect of it.

Under s 78(2) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA), an employee who is not a Government officer and is aggrieved by a decision to take disciplinary action under s 82A(3)(b) may refer that decision to the Commission as if it were an industrial matter under s 29(1)(c) of the IR Act and the IR Act applies accordingly.