You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

Slater and Gordon successfully acted for the Independent Education Union of Western Australia against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth (the provider of Catholic Education in Western Australia) in an interpretation of an agreement dispute before the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

The IEU and the Catholic Education Office were in dispute about the proper construction of clauses 23 and 24 of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth Teachers Enterprise Agreement 2012.

The Catholic Education Office made changes to work hours of teachers and the IEU argued that clause 23 required the Catholic Education Office to consult with the IEU prior to making an alteration to the work hours. The Catholic Education Office refused to consult with the IEU, arguing that the change to the work hours was minor and not a “significant effect” so as to enliven the consultation requirements under clause 23.

Clause 24 expressly referred to a Teacher Workloads policy and provided that the Policy could only be changed with the agreement of both parties. The Policy set the maximum work hours of a teacher. By changing the work hours of teachers the Catholic Education Office unilaterally changed the Policy. We argued the plain and ordinary interpretation of clause 24 meant that a change to the Policy could only be made with mutual agreement.

The WAIRC agreed with our submission that it is clear from the wording of clause 23 of the EBA that any alteration of hours of work is a ‘significant effect’ so as to enliven the consultation requirements in clause 23. The WAIRC further agreed that the Catholic Education Office cannot unilaterally change the Policy where there is a change to work hours of a teacher.

The favourable interpretation potentially opened the door to a penalties claim against the Catholic Education Office for a breach of the EBA.

Independent Education Union of Western Australia, Union of Employees (IEUWA) v Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [2016] WAIRC 00747.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Employment Law
Life after lockdown: what are your rights with returning to work?

COVID-19 has changed many things in our lives. It has made us adapt to new social norms of staying 1.5 meters apart, it has introduced face masks to our daily lives, and it has caused a mass disruption to the way we work. But now that many lockdown restrictions are easing and we start to return to more “normal” ways of working, what are your rights to continue to work flexibly? If your employer wants you to return to the office, then in most cases you’ll have to go back unless their request is unreasonable or it’s unsafe. Whether it’s safe for you to return will depend on factors such as the nature of your employer’s business and how it’s carried out, whether your employer is...

Flexible working arrangements in COVID
Employment Law
National industrial manslaughter legislation would save lives

Strong national industrial manslaughter legislation is what Australian workers need, but a national law is not supported by the Federal Government. As a Workers’ Compensation lawyer in national law firm, I see the lack of consistency across the states and believe there should be national standards to protect all workers. Workers should feel safe no matter what state they live in. The recent death of a worker in Sydney’s Port Botany who was crushed between two shipping containers, and delays in commitment from the NSW Government to investigate industrial manslaughter laws, highlight the need for national reform. In the meantime, the NSW State Government needs to take fast action on...

Outdoor construction worksafe
Employment Law
Accepting jobs through apps puts workers’ rights at risk

Workers getting jobs through apps like Airtasker and Uber Eats are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to, are often unaware of their current hourly rate and most are not covered by work-related insurance. Research from Queensland University of Technology, the University of Adelaide and University of Technology Sydney, commissioned by the Victorian Government, showed about seven per cent of 14,000 respondents had found work on a digital platform (the gig economy) in the past year and 40 per cent of those did not know how much they were earning per hour. It showed younger people (aged 18-34) and males were accepting work through digital platforms in higher proportions than other...

Shutterstock 1388236754 Resized

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.