HomeIndustrial hubWA teachersBargaining, and what is happening now
Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) · Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026

Bargaining for WA teachers and lecturers, and what is happening now.

How agreements are made and replaced in the WA state system, how the wages policy and the Commission fit in, and the public record of the 2026 rounds. No view on any outcome.

5 December 2026the schools agreement reaches nominal expiry
15 December 2026the TAFE agreement reaches nominal expiry
26 May 2026the Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026 was issued
Teachers seated in a library listen to one speaker

Next step 5 December 2026: the schools agreement reaches its nominal expiry, and the TAFE agreement follows on 15 December 2026. Each continues in force until replaced (IR Act s 41(6)).

Key dates

DateWhatSource
6 December 2025The last scheduled pay rise under the schools agreement (3%)SCH013 Schedule A
15 December 2025The last scheduled pay rise under the TAFE agreement (3%)WES337 cl 28.4
26 May 2026The Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026 is issuedWages Policy Statement 2026
15 June 2026The latest date for TAFE negotiations to begin under the agreement: "At least 6 months before this Agreement expires"WES337 cl 7.2
3 November 2026The union's home page says members are voting on the 2026 draft schools log of claimssstuwa.org.au
5 December 2026The schools agreement reaches its nominal expiry date; it continues in force until replacedSCH013 cl 5.1; IR Act s 41(6)
15 December 2026The TAFE agreement reaches its nominal expiry date; it continues in force until replacedWES337 cl 7.1
6 December 2025What: The last scheduled pay rise under the schools agreement (3%)
15 December 2025What: The last scheduled pay rise under the TAFE agreement (3%)
26 May 2026What: The Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026 is issued
15 June 2026What: The latest date for TAFE negotiations to begin under the agreement: "At least 6 months before this Agreement expires"
Show all 7 rowsShow fewer
3 November 2026What: The union's home page says members are voting on the 2026 draft schools log of claims
5 December 2026What: The schools agreement reaches its nominal expiry date; it continues in force until replaced
15 December 2026What: The TAFE agreement reaches its nominal expiry date; it continues in force until replaced

Part A: how bargaining works in the WA state system

Public school teachers are employed by the Director General of the Department of Education "for and on behalf of the Crown" (School Education Act 1999 (WA) s 236(2), (6)), and TAFE lecturers by their college (Vocational Education and Training Act 1996 (WA) s 47). Their agreements are made and registered under the IR Act, not the Fair Work Act.

What the two agreements are, and who is bound

An industrial agreement is an agreement about industrial matters between a union and an employer, registered by the Commission (IR Act s 41(1)–(2)). Where it is inconsistent with an award, the agreement prevails (s 41(9)).

Schools agreement (SCH013)TAFE agreement (WES337)
PartiesThe Director General of the Department of Education, the SSTUWA and the Principals' Federation of WA (cl 4.1)The SSTUWA and the employers in Schedule M: the five TAFE college governing councils and the Director General of the Department of Training and Workforce Development (cl 5.1)
Who it applies toTeaching staff employed under s 235 of the School Education Act who are members of, or eligible to join, either union (cl 6.1)Employees of those employers in WA who are members of, or eligible to join, the SSTUWA (cl 5.2)
How manyAbout 34,500, including the average number of casuals over a school year (cl 6.2)About 2,904 (cl 5.3)
Award read with itTeachers (Public Sector Primary and Secondary Education) Award 1993 (TEA007)Teachers (Public Sector Technical and Further Education) Award 1993 (TEA008) and the Community Colleges Award, 1990 (COM003) (cl 8.2–8.3)
Pay rises5%, 4% and 3% from 6 December 2023, 2024 and 2025 (Schedule A)5%, 4% and 3% from 15 December 2023, 2024 and 2025 (cl 28.2–28.4)
Nominal expiry5 December 2026 (cl 5.1)15 December 2026 (cl 7.1)
When bargaining must startNo date set in the agreement"At least 6 months before this Agreement expires, the parties shall commence negotiations" (cl 7.2)
No further claims"For the term of this Agreement there will be no further claims on matters contained within this Agreement, except where specifically provided" (cl 8.1)The parties "agree to abide by all the terms of this Agreement until it is replaced", and no additional claims are to be made "during the term of the Agreement", except by mutual agreement (cl 6.1)
Base for the next agreementNot stated"The pay rates of this Agreement will form the new base rates for any future Agreement, provided that changes to employment conditions are maintained" (cl 28.7)
PartiesSchools agreement (SCH013): The Director General of the Department of Education, the SSTUWA and the Principals' Federation of WA (cl 4.1)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
The SSTUWA and the employers in Schedule M: the five TAFE college governing councils and the Director General of the Department of Training and Workforce Development (cl 5.1)
Who it applies toSchools agreement (SCH013): Teaching staff employed under s 235 of the School Education Act who are members of, or eligible to join, either union (cl 6.1)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
Employees of those employers in WA who are members of, or eligible to join, the SSTUWA (cl 5.2)
How manySchools agreement (SCH013): About 34,500, including the average number of casuals over a school year (cl 6.2)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
About 2,904 (cl 5.3)
Award read with itSchools agreement (SCH013): Teachers (Public Sector Primary and Secondary Education) Award 1993 (TEA007)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
Teachers (Public Sector Technical and Further Education) Award 1993 (TEA008) and the Community Colleges Award, 1990 (COM003) (cl 8.2–8.3)
Show all 9 rowsShow fewer
Pay risesSchools agreement (SCH013): 5%, 4% and 3% from 6 December 2023, 2024 and 2025 (Schedule A)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
5%, 4% and 3% from 15 December 2023, 2024 and 2025 (cl 28.2–28.4)
Nominal expirySchools agreement (SCH013): 5 December 2026 (cl 5.1)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
15 December 2026 (cl 7.1)
When bargaining must startSchools agreement (SCH013): No date set in the agreement
TAFE agreement (WES337)
"At least 6 months before this Agreement expires, the parties shall commence negotiations" (cl 7.2)
No further claimsSchools agreement (SCH013): "For the term of this Agreement there will be no further claims on matters contained within this Agreement, except where specifically provided" (cl 8.1)
TAFE agreement (WES337)
The parties "agree to abide by all the terms of this Agreement until it is replaced", and no additional claims are to be made "during the term of the Agreement", except by mutual agreement (cl 6.1)
Base for the next agreementSchools agreement (SCH013): Not stated
TAFE agreement (WES337)
"The pay rates of this Agreement will form the new base rates for any future Agreement, provided that changes to employment conditions are maintained" (cl 28.7)
Nominal expiry, and what happens after it

An agreement operates for the term it states (IR Act s 41(5)(b)). After that, it "continues in force" for all parties, except any that retire from it, until a new agreement or an award is made in its place (s 41(6)). The TAFE agreement repeats this: "Notwithstanding the expiry of this Agreement, its terms and conditions will continue in force until it is replaced by a new agreement" (WES337 cl 7.1).

What this means for pay:

(a) the rates do not fall on the expiry date, but they do not rise either. Neither agreement schedules an increase after December 2025, so from 6 December 2026 (schools) and 16 December 2026 (TAFE) members stay on the December 2025 rates until a replacement is registered (SCH013 Schedule A; WES337 Schedule G);

(b) a party may retire from an expired agreement by filing a notice of intention to retire, from 30 days before expiry onwards; it stops being a party 30 days after filing (s 41(7));

(c) when a replacement agreement is registered, the old one is cancelled except to the extent the new one keeps its terms (s 41(8)). Both current agreements were registered that way, replacing the 2021 agreements (Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. [2024] WAIRC 00949; Governing Council of North Metropolitan TAFE [2024] WAIRC 00932).

What happened last time. In the 2023 round, back pay was paid only to employees still employed on the date the new agreement was registered. A person who had resigned, retired or otherwise left before registration received nothing (SCH013 cl 23.2–23.3; WES337 cl 28.2, 28.5).

Starting bargaining, and the duty of good faith

A union or employer starts formal bargaining by written notice to the other party (IR Act s 42(1)). While an agreement is in force, the notice cannot be given earlier than 90 days before its nominal expiry date (s 42(5)), and the other party has 21 days to say whether it will bargain (s 42A(1)). Negotiations can run before a formal notice is given: in the 2008 TAFE round the parties had been negotiating since August 2007, and the union lodged its notice to initiate bargaining on 7 December 2007 (Director General, Department of Education and Training v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2008] WAIRC 00391, recitals). The TAFE agreement's own commitment to start negotiations six months before expiry (cl 7.2) is a promise in the agreement, separate from the statutory notice.

Once bargaining has started, each negotiating party "must bargain in good faith" (s 42B(1)). Good faith includes (s 42B(2)):

(a) stating and explaining your position on the matters at issue;

(b) meeting at reasonable times, intervals and places for face-to-face bargaining;

(c) disclosing relevant and necessary information;

(d) acting honestly and openly, "which includes not capriciously adding or withdrawing items for bargaining";

(e) recognising bargaining agents;

(f) giving union representatives reasonable facilities to do their job;

(g) "bargaining genuinely and dedicating sufficient resources to ensure this occurs";

(h) keeping to agreed outcomes and commitments.

Good faith does not require a party to agree to any term, or to make an agreement at all (s 42D). The Commission may help the parties bargain and make orders to ensure they bargain in good faith (s 42E), but it cannot make a party enter an agreement or dictate its terms (s 42F), unless the parties have agreed some of the terms and jointly ask it to decide the rest (s 42G).

When bargaining is declared ended, and enterprise orders

If bargaining stalls, a negotiating party can ask a single commissioner to declare that bargaining has ended. The commissioner may do so if satisfied that (s 42H(1)):

(a) the applicant has bargained in good faith;

(b) bargaining between the applicant and another negotiating party has failed; and

(c) there is no reasonable prospect of the negotiating parties reaching an agreement.

No appeal lies from the declaration (s 42H(2)).

After a declaration, the negotiating party named in it may apply for an enterprise order (s 42I(2)(a)), within 21 days (s 42I(3)(a)). The Commission then writes the terms itself: it may make an order "providing for any matter that might otherwise be provided for in an industrial agreement" between those parties, and that it "considers is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances" (s 42I(1)(c)–(d)). An enterprise order:

(a) binds only the employer named in it and employees in the callings it names (s 42J(1));

(b) prevails over an award or industrial agreement where they conflict (s 42J(3));

(c) lasts no more than 2 years from when it comes into operation (s 42K(2)), and then continues until replaced (s 42K(7)).

Teachers have been through this. In 2008 the Commission declared that bargaining had ended for both the schools agreement (Director General, Department of Education and Training v State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia [2008] WAIRC 00341, 6 June 2008) and the TAFE lecturers' agreement (Director General v SSTUWA [2008] WAIRC 00391, 3 July 2008). In both cases the employer applied for the declaration. No enterprise order was made in either round: agreements were reached and registered instead: the schools agreement on 16 December 2008 (Director General, Department of Education and Training v State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia Inc. [2009] WAIRC 00274) and the TAFE lecturers' agreement on 28 April 2009 (The Governing Council of Central TAFE [2009] WAIRC 00218), and the TAFE enterprise order application was discontinued (Director General, Department of Education and Training v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2009] WAIRC 00588). Case example 1 below describes one ruling in the TAFE enterprise order case.

The wages policy, and what the Commission must weigh

The Government sets its bargaining position through a public sector wages policy. The Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026, issued on 26 May 2026, applies to WA public sector industrial agreements, except that the 2023 Statement "continues to apply to industrial agreements that expired before 6 May 2026" (cl 4–5). Both teacher agreements expire in December 2026, so their replacements fall under the 2026 Statement. It says:

(a) in making offers, the Government will "place specific emphasis on delivering financially sustainable outcomes that are reasonable in the context of each negotiation", and prioritise the timely negotiation of replacement agreements (cl 6). The Statement sets no percentage figure;

(b) subject to that, it will prioritise attraction and retention of skilled workers, service delivery in regional and remote WA, "direct and permanent employment as the preferred mode of employment", and the performance of public sector organisations (cl 7);

(c) a new agreement applies "from the date of registration", and the Government "may consider retrospective wage increases up to the expiry of any previous agreement, in the context of good faith bargaining" (cl 9);

(d) a new agreement does not apply to employees who leave before it is registered (cl 10).

The policy binds the Government's negotiators. It does not bind the Commission. But if the Commission has to decide terms in a "public sector decision", which includes an enterprise order or a s 42G order that will bind a public sector entity, it must take into account (IR Act s 26(2A), (2B)):

(a) any Public Sector Wages Policy Statement applicable to negotiations with that entity;

(b) the State's financial position and fiscal strategy, as set out in the most recent Government Financial Strategy Statement and the Government Financial Projections Statement, and any submissions made for the entity or the State;

(c) the entity's own financial position, as set out in its part of the budget papers and any submissions.

A "public sector entity" includes a public sector body (s 26(2B)). The Department of Education is a department, and the TAFE colleges are listed as SES organisations, so both are agencies and therefore public sector bodies (Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA) s 3, Schedule 2 item 3F).

These factors are "in addition to" the economic factors the Commission must consider in every case, such as the state of the economy, the employer's capacity to pay, productivity and the likely effect on employment and inflation (s 26(1)(d), (2C)). The Commission in Court Session has said: "The legislation does not make s 26(2A) a standard against which the other considerations are to be assessed. Nor is s 26(2A) of greater weight than those matters in s 26(1)(d)" (The Minister for Health v Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) [2015] WAIRC 00332 at [123]). In the same decision it said that, in the fiscal conditions of the time, arbitrated increases greater than projected CPI "should be the exception rather than the rule due to the State experiencing the most challenging fiscal environment for many years" (at [136]), but it still found that fairness required an increase above projected CPI in that case (at [135], [138]). That was a health sector arbitration under the 2014 text of s 26, which has been amended since. No decision applying s 26(2A) to teachers or TAFE lecturers was found.

Industrial action, and how the Commission deals with it

"Industrial action" is defined widely. It covers any act or omission by a union, employer, employee or other person for the purpose, "or in the opinion of the Commission for the purpose", of compelling acceptance of terms or conditions of employment or enforcing a demand about employment (IR Act s 7(1), definition of industrial action).

The IR Act has no scheme of "protected" industrial action. Four provisions bear on strikes and bans:

(a) good faith: the Commission may, "having regard to the circumstances in which the industrial action occurs, determine that engaging in industrial action is a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith" (s 42B(3));

(b) s 44 orders: the Commission may summon the parties to a compulsory conference, including on its own motion whenever industrial action has occurred or is likely (s 44(1), (7)), and make orders to "prevent the deterioration of industrial relations" or to enable conciliation or arbitration to resolve the matter (s 44(6)(ba)). In a 2011 appeal about an interim order for an individual teacher during a disciplinary dispute (not industrial action), the Acting President of the Full Bench said s 44(6)(ba) orders "are not confined to making orders to maintain the status quo" (The Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of WA (Inc) [2011] WAIRC 00058 at [58]);

(c) who an order binds: a registered union is "a separate legal entity from its officers, members and employees", so a s 44 order is made against the union, which can breach it through what its officers, employees and members do (The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) v Director-General, Department of Education and Training [2008] WAIRC 00364 at [87], [94], [96]);

(d) enforcement: if a s 44 order is not obeyed, the Registrar, at the Commission's direction, may apply to the Full Bench (s 84A(1)(b)). If the breach is proved, the Full Bench may accept an undertaking, issue a caution or impose a penalty of up to $13,000, or direct the Registrar to issue a summons under s 73(1) (s 84A(5)(a)). A s 73(1) summons requires a union to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled or suspended (s 73(1)).

The Commission has made s 44 orders about bans and stoppages in past teacher bargaining rounds, and has also declined some of the orders sought. Case examples 2 and 3 below describe two of them.

Disputes while the agreement runs

Each agreement has its own procedure, and both end in the Commission:

(a) schools: a collective dispute about the agreement, policies or conditions goes to a first meeting within two weeks, then to the Employee Relations Executive Committee after six weeks or earlier, then to the Commission "for conciliation and/or arbitration", with the status quo kept meanwhile unless impractical (SCH013 cl 56.4–56.7, 56.10);

(b) TAFE: a workplace dispute goes to the lecturer and manager for five working days, then in writing to the managing director and the union president, then after ten working days to the Commission "for determination", with duties continuing as normal meanwhile (WES337 cl 12.1, 12.4).

Beyond the agreements, a party bound by an agreement can ask the Commission to declare its "true interpretation" (IR Act s 46(1)), and a breach can be enforced in the Industrial Magistrates Court (s 83(1)), with maximum penalties of $93,000 for a body corporate and $18,000 for an individual, or ten times those amounts for a serious contravention (s 83(4A)).

What the Fair Work Act still reaches

The State is not a national system employer, and WA has not referred its public sector to the Commonwealth (Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 14(1), s 30B). So, for public school teachers and TAFE lecturers:

(a) Fair Work enterprise bargaining, protected industrial action, Fair Work right of entry and the general protections against action by the State as employer do not apply;

(b) no current Fair Work agreement covers WA public school teachers or TAFE lecturers. The Australian Education Union's WA Branch is federally registered and is the SSTUWA's counterpart federal body (The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2013] WAIRC 00382), but bargaining for members happens in the WA system;

(c) some parts of the Fair Work Act still reach State employees (s 742, s 770). Three bear on bargaining and restructures:

(i) dismissal because of union membership or activity outside working hours (or, with the employer's consent, during them) is unlawful termination, applied for in the Fair Work Commission within 21 days (s 772(1)(b), s 774(1));

(ii) if a school or TAFE function moves to a national system employer and staff move with it within 3 months, their State instrument comes with them (s 768AD, s 768AA);

(iii) before 15 or more terminations for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons, the employer must notify Centrelink and consult the union (ss 785 to 787).

From 1996, WA teachers and lecturers were under federal certified agreements made through the Australian Education Union. Schools were back under a State agreement by 2006, and the last federal TAFE agreement reached its nominal expiry on 31 December 2007 (Director General, Department of Education and Training v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2008] WAIRC 01507 at [5]). The federal route closed when the federal system moved onto the corporations power (New South Wales v Commonwealth [2006] HCA 52). It is history, not a route open today.

Part B: what is happening now (as at 3 November 2026)

This part describes only what is on the public record: the agreements, published decisions and public statements. It takes no side and makes no prediction. It will be updated when something new is published.

Read moreShow less

The schools agreement

(a) Where it stands. SCH013 reaches its nominal expiry on 5 December 2026 (cl 5.1). The agreement sets no date for bargaining to begin.

(b) The log of claims. On 3 November 2026 the union's home page said: "The 2026 Draft Log of Claims has been completed with input from branches, committees, district councils, state council and executive. It is now time for members to review the log and vote on whether to accept it so we can move forward to negotiations" (sstuwa.org.au, read 3 November 2026). The log itself is for members only, so this page says nothing about its contents.

(c) Commitments in the current agreement. The schools agreement commits the parties to develop a conversion to permanency clause; if they finalise it during the agreement's life then, subject to Government approval, an application may be made under s 43 of the IR Act to vary the agreement to include it (SCH013 cl 30.1). The Commission's page for SCH013, read on 3 November 2026, showed no variation (WAIRC agreement page).

The TAFE lecturers' agreement

(a) Where it stands. WES337 reaches its nominal expiry on 15 December 2026 and continues until replaced (cl 7.1).

(b) The bargaining start. The agreement required negotiations for a replacement to begin at least six months before expiry, "with the objective of making an agreement that commences operation from the day after the expiry of this Agreement" (cl 7.2), that is, by 15 June 2026. No public TAFE log of claims or ballot was found, so this page cannot say whether or when negotiations began.

In the Commission

No 2026 bargaining matter between the union and the Department of Education or the TAFE employers appeared in the Commission's published decisions, checked up to Shire of Mundaring v Western Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union of Employees [2026] WAIRC 00963 on 3 November 2026: no declaration that bargaining has ended, no enterprise order application and no s 44 order about industrial action.

For unions and industrial officers

The same research agent can work through your members' agreement, its history in the Commission, and the decisions on it.

Decided cases

What the Commission and the courts decided.

Published decisions, retold in plain English from the decision itself. Each links to the full text. Lawcaptain did not act in these cases.

Strikes and reporting ban ordered off; some other orders sought were refusedWestern Australian Industrial Relations Commission · 17 June 2008

Rolling half-day strikes and a reporting ban ordered off during the 2008 schools round

With bargaining declared ended, the union planned rolling half-day stoppages and a ban on entering student report data. The Commission ordered both stopped, but refused some of the other orders the Department sought.

Read the full storyShow less

In June 2008, the month bargaining for the schools agreement was declared ended, the union's State Council endorsed rolling half-day strikes and directed members not to enter report data on the Department's system. The Department applied under s 44 for orders.

The Commission found the matters were industrial matters within its s 44 powers. It found the proposed rolling stoppages "will have a detrimental effect on schools and students" and would make it hard for schools and parents to arrange care for students.

It took into account that bargaining had ended and that the Department intended to apply for an arbitrated enterprise order.

It ordered the union to stop the rolling half-day stoppages, lift the reporting ban so Semester 1 reports could issue, and take no industrial action about the replacement agreement until the enterprise order question was decided.

It declined to order that the union's general directive be lifted as a whole, or that teachers be required to take part in voluntary planning for 2009, finding those did not warrant orders. The Department confirmed that teachers unable to enter data for reasons beyond their control would not be sanctioned.

What it means for you

In that round, once bargaining had been declared ended and arbitration was in view, the Commission stopped the strikes and bans it found would harm students, but did not order teachers to do voluntary work.

Commissioner J L Harrison, C 17 of 2008. Revoked after a new schools agreement was registered on 16 December 2008 (Director General, Department of Education and Training v State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia Inc. [2009] WAIRC 00274). In a related matter that year, the Full Bench fined the union $1,500 for holding a stop-work meeting in breach of an earlier s 44 order (The Registrar of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2008] WAIRC 00270).

Interim pay rise refusedWestern Australian Industrial Relations Commission · 21 October 2008

TAFE lecturers asked for an interim 7% pay rise while bargaining went to arbitration: the Commission said no

Bargaining for a new TAFE lecturers' agreement broke down in 2008, and lecturers had not had a pay rise since January 2007. The union asked the Commission for an interim order giving a 7% rise, backdated, while the full arbitration waited until 2009. The Commission refused, because it had too little evidence before it to say the rise was fair and reasonable.

Read the full storyShow less

The 2005 TAFE lecturers' agreement had a nominal expiry date of 31 December 2007, the parties negotiated from August 2007, and on 3 July 2008 the Commission declared that bargaining had ended ([5]). The Department then asked the Commission for an enterprise order, and the union answered with two orders of its own ([1]). The first, heard first, gave an immediate 7% rise and a lump sum back to 1 January 2008; the second would add a further 17%, 24% in all ([7], [15]). The full hearing was moved to February 2009 at the union's request, so it could prepare ([2]-[3]). The last rise, 3.6%, had been paid from January 2007 ([22]).

Two preliminary points went the union's way:

(a) offers made "without prejudice" during bargaining were admitted as evidence, because the Department's own application to end bargaining had already put them in the public domain ([12]-[13]);

(b) the Commission found it can make more than one enterprise order on one application, a point the Department conceded ([19]-[20]).

The union argued the 7% was less than the Department itself was offering, close to inflation, and in line with the practice of backdating rises to the expiry of the old agreement ([51]). The Commission was not satisfied, for these reasons:

(a) interstate pay comparisons could not be relied on without knowing the conditions of TAFE staff in other States ([54]);

(b) movements in the CPI were relevant but not a major factor without other evidence about the issues in dispute ([54]);

(c) the Department's offers had been made without prejudice, as a package in exchange for changes, and the last 7% offer had been withdrawn, so little if any weight went on them ([54]);

(d) the real cost of a backdated 7% compared with the Department's 11.55% from later dates could not be worked out on the information before it ([55]).

Without "compelling reasons" to grant a rise before the main matter was heard, the Commission declined to make the first order ([56]), and the union's claim for it was dismissed ([58]). Because lecturers would go more than a year without a rise, it said it would hear further from the parties in February 2009 on whether the first order, or any other, should issue before the main matter was finished ([57]).

In the decision's words: "I accept that the department is now not bound by these offers and I place little if any weight on the quantum of these offers." ([54]).

What it means for you

When bargaining has been declared at an end and the Commission is asked to arbitrate, a member in this position may be able to look to the union to seek an interim enterprise order, but this decision shows the Commission may want evidence on the issues in dispute first, and may give little weight to offers the employer made without prejudice and later withdrew. The enterprise order power, s 42I of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), still exists in the current Act (as at 1 September 2026) with the same "fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances" test (s 42I(1)(d)). The current Act also now requires the Commission, for an enterprise order binding a public sector entity, to take into account any Public Sector Wages Policy Statement and the State's and the entity's financial position (s 26(2A), (2B)); those matters were not part of this 2008 decision.

Outcome: Lost by the union. The Commission dismissed the union's claim for a first (interim) enterprise order giving TAFE lecturers a 7% rise backdated to 1 January 2008, and said it would hear the parties again in February 2009 about whether any interim order should issue before the main case was decided.

Order against the banWestern Australian Industrial Relations Commission · 21 April 2010

Teachers' union directed members to boycott NAPLAN: the Commission ordered the union not to take industrial action over the tests

In April 2010 the union directed teachers and administrators to take part in a national moratorium on NAPLAN testing, over the use of results for school league tables. The Department sought an urgent order. The Commission recognised the union's concerns, but held the direction was a ban on work and ordered that it not proceed.

Read the full storyShow less

On 19 April 2010 the union directed teachers and administrators in government schools to take part in a national moratorium on NAPLAN, following a decision of the Australian Education Union's Federal Executive ([3]-[4]). Members were not to do any work for the tests, before, on or after the test days ([5]). On 12 April the Director General had issued an instruction under s 233 of the School Education Act 1999 (WA) requiring principals and teachers to administer the tests; a breach of such an instruction is treated as disobedience of a lawful order under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA) ([10]-[11]).

The Department said about 75,000 government school students would be affected, that student assessment would be disrupted, and that more than $15 million in reward funding depended on the tests ([13]-[15]). The union said its concern was not the tests but the use of results to compile "misleading league tables" on the My School website, and that it had not been consulted; it said its resolution was not a "ban" that should be the subject of an order ([18]-[21]).

The Commissioner recognised that the union and its members had expressed professional and ethical concerns ([23]), but found:

(a) the students in the tested years would be most directly affected if the tests did not proceed ([23]);

(b) the matter was an industrial matter, and the direction to members "does constitute a ban or limitation upon the performance of work" that raised issues of compliance with contracts, the award and the s 233 instruction ([25]);

(c) the results would not be released until about mid-September 2010, leaving time for the union's concerns to be pursued while the tests went ahead ([26]).

Weighing the public interest under s 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), the balance of convenience favoured an order that members undertake the testing ([27]).

In the decision's words: "The resolution of the respondent, to direct its members to not undertake any work in connection with the NAPLAN testing does constitute a ban or limitation upon the performance of work by the teachers and principals concerned" ([25]).

What it means for you

A union direction not to do part of the job, even one grounded in professional or ethical objections, can be treated as a ban on work and stopped by an interim order made after an urgent conference under s 44 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) ([1], [25], [27]; The Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of WA (Incorporated) [2010] WAIRC 00222 at [8]). The Commission weighed the public interest and the effect on students heavily, and pointed to other ways of pursuing the concern ([22]-[26]).

Outcome: Lost by the union. On 21 April 2010 the Commission published reasons and a minute of proposed order. After the parties spoke to the minutes, it issued an interim order under s 44(6)(ba) on 23 April 2010 that the union, by its officers, employees and members, not engage in industrial action concerning the implementation and administration of NAPLAN testing in May 2010 (Director General v SSTUWA [2010] WAIRC 00222, The Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of WA (Incorporated) [2010] WAIRC 00223). The application was later discontinued by leave (The Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of WA (Incorporated) [2011] WAIRC 00280, 12 April 2011).

Claim dismissedAustralian Industrial Relations Commission · 3 May 1999

Teachers who refused the Minister's individual 7.5% pay offer lost their claim for the 2.5% difference, except possibly remote teachers

In 1995, during an industrial dispute, WA teachers who signed the Minister's individual offer got 7.5% while those who did not got the 5% ordered by the federal Commission. The union said the 2.5% gap was unfair to members who wanted to bargain collectively. The Commission agreed the gap was not matched by any difference in work, but refused to order back pay.

Read the full storyShow less

This is history, from the 1990s federal era. Today the schools agreement is registered in the WAIRC (Director General, Department of Education v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. [2024] WAIRC 00949). In this dispute the AEU sought federal regulation while the Minister wanted teachers to stay in the state jurisdiction ([19]). On 18 July 1995 the Minister began making pay offers direct to teachers and administrators for individual agreements, which required them to accept changes to work practices ([22]). On 19 October 1995 Munro J of the federal Commission stopped the industrial action and increased salaries by 5% ([22]).

The union claimed an extra 2.5% for those on Munro J's 5%, because those who accepted the Minister's offer received 7.5% for, the union said, the same work, until a certified agreement took effect from 1 January 1996 ([23]). It relied on the Weipa case, which, the union submitted, established that union members should not be discriminated against because of their preferred form of bargaining ([15], [56]).

The Commissioner found:

(a) for the period in question there was "a wage differential of 2.5% which was not reflected in the work performed" ([53]);

(b) the dispute was largely about whether teachers would be regulated by state or federal law, and both sides "were engaged in a strategic battle" ([47]-[48]; see also [63]-[64]);

(c) apart from the Remote Teaching Service, the employer did not try to remove the union, and its prime objective was to reach agreement with the SSTUWA ([63], [66]-[67]).

Because the unfairness was not of the kind found in Weipa, and the Commissioner would not "correct or undo the bargaining dynamics" Munro J created, the claim was dismissed except for the Remote Teaching Service ([85]-[86]). For remote teachers, who were offered individual agreements with no union involvement, a similar unfairness "may well be present" if their increase from 19 October 1995 was less than 7.5%, though the Commissioner thought that unlikely ([75], [77]). A Full Bench granted leave to appeal but dismissed the union's appeal (Australian Education Union v Minister for Education for the State of Western Australia [2000] AIRC 854 at [14]).

In the decision's words: "There is substance to the complaint, and the feeling of unfairness held by employees, that the operative date for the certified agreements should have been from the date of Munro J's order." ([81]).

What it means for you

This federal-era dispute is history for WA public school teachers, who now bargain and resolve disputes in the WA state system. What still carries over is the general lesson about settlements: once the parties agree an operative date, a tribunal may be slow to change it later, even where members feel the outcome is unfair ([85]; AEU v Minister [2000] AIRC 854 at [13]). A member in this position may be able to raise concerns about the timing of a pay increase with the union while an agreement is being negotiated, rather than after it is settled.

Outcome: Lost by the union. The claim for an extra 2.5% for teachers and administrators who stayed on the 5% interim increase was dismissed, except for the Remote Teaching Service, where the union was given 21 days to submit a draft order. The union's appeal failed.

Employer’s appeal allowedHigh Court of Australia · 7 September 2012

The High Court said a TAFE employer can rebut the union-activity presumption if its decision-maker is believed

A Victorian TAFE teacher who was president of the union sub-branch emailed members warning them not to take part in preparing false documents for an audit, and was suspended. The Fair Work Act presumes such action was taken for a union reason unless the employer proves otherwise. The High Court held the employer had proved it, because the decision-maker's evidence of her real reason was believed.

Read the full storyShow less

The teacher was an employee of a Victorian TAFE institute, in a team responsible for course accreditation, and president of the institute's sub-branch of the Australian Education Union ([2], [8]; Gummow and Hayne JJ at [67] call him "a senior teacher"). Several members had raised concerns with him about inaccurate information in documents for a re-accreditation audit, and asked him not to name them or take formal action ([9]). On 29 January 2010 he emailed all union members at the institute saying several members had reported being asked to help produce "false and fraudulent documents for the audit" ([11]).

On 2 February 2010 the Chief Executive Officer suspended him on full pay and asked him to show cause why he should not be disciplined, citing the way he raised the allegation, his not reporting it to management, and his refusal to give particulars ([13]). He returned to work after the parties agreed at an interlocutory hearing on 12 February 2010 ([14]). He and the union then sought declarations that the institute had taken adverse action against him because he was a union officer and had engaged in industrial activity, contrary to s 346 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ([3]).

The Chief Executive Officer gave evidence that she acted because he had not raised such serious allegations with management, not because of his union role, and that she would have done the same to someone who was not a union officer ([27]-[29]). The trial judge accepted that evidence and dismissed the claim ([4], [32]). A majority of the Full Federal Court reversed that, reasoning that the "real reason" could be unconscious and different from the reason the decision-maker gave ([34], [37]).

The High Court restored the trial judge's decision. French CJ and Crennan J held:

(a) the question why the employer acted is one of fact, answered on all the evidence, and s 346 does not call for a purely objective enquiry including unconscious reasons ([44]-[45]);

(b) it will generally be "extremely difficult" for an employer to displace the s 361 presumption without direct evidence from the decision-maker, but accepted, reliable evidence from the decision-maker can discharge it ([45]);

(c) the presumption is not made heavier because the employee is a union officer or was engaged in union activity, and the reason need not be entirely dissociated from the union role ([60], [62]).

Gummow and Hayne JJ, in joint reasons, held that the test is whether union activity was "a substantial and operative factor" in the decision-maker's reasons at the time ([127]), and answered the question "objective or subjective?" with "Neither" ([129]). Heydon J agreed the appeal should be allowed, saying the search is for "the reasoning actually employed by the person who acted" ([146], [150]).

In the decision's words: "Generally, it will be extremely difficult to displace the statutory presumption in s 361 if no direct testimony is given by the decision-maker acting on behalf of the employer." ([45]).

What it means for you

The general protections in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) apply to action by a constitutionally covered entity, such as a trading corporation, and to some other action (s 338); a non-government school company is an example. They do not reach action taken by the State as employer, so they do not help a WA Department of Education teacher, and whether a WA TAFE college is a trading corporation has not been decided. For a member employed by a covered entity, s 346 and the s 361 presumption are still in the Act in the same terms (compilation C2026C00355, ss 346, 360, 361): a member in that position who is disciplined after union activity may be able to rely on the presumption that the action was taken for that reason, and the employer is likely to need evidence from the person who made the decision to rebut it ([45]). A State-employed teacher dismissed for union membership or activity, or for acting as an employee representative, has a narrower federal route: the unlawful termination provisions apply to every employer and employee (s 770, s 772(1)(b), (d)), carry a similar presumption (s 783), and need an application to the Fair Work Commission within 21 days (s 774(1)). A claim about the same dismissal in the WA Industrial Relations Commission bars that application (s 725, s 732).

Outcome: The employer won. The appeal was allowed, the Full Federal Court's orders were set aside, and in their place the appeal to the Full Court was dismissed, which left standing the trial judge's dismissal of the claim (orders 1 and 2). Costs were left to consent or written submissions (order 3).

Show more case studies (3)(3)Show fewer
Questions

The things people ask.

Does our agreement stop applying when it expires in December 2026?

No. Under s 41(6) of the IR Act an industrial agreement continues in force for all parties, except any that retire from it, until a new agreement or award replaces it (IR Act s 41(6)). The TAFE agreement says so itself (WES337 cl 7.1).

Will my pay go up when the agreement expires?

Not automatically. Neither agreement schedules a rise after December 2025, so the December 2025 rates continue until a replacement is registered (SCH013 Schedule A; WES337 cl 28.4).

Will the new agreement be backdated?

Only if that is agreed or ordered. Under the Public Sector Wages Policy Statement 2026 a new agreement applies from registration, and the Government "may consider retrospective wage increases up to the expiry of any previous agreement, in the context of good faith bargaining" (cl 9). People who leave before registration are not covered (cl 10). In the last round, back pay went only to people still employed on the registration date (SCH013 cl 23.2–23.3).

Is there a wages cap?

The 2026 Statement contains no percentage figure. It asks for "financially sustainable outcomes that are reasonable in the context of each negotiation" (cl 6). If the Commission has to set terms, it must consider the policy and the State's and the employer's finances, but these are "in addition to" the other economic factors, and are not a standard the other factors are measured against (IR Act s 26(2A), (2C); The Minister for Health v Health Services Union of Western Australia (Union of Workers) [2015] WAIRC 00332 at [123]).

Can teachers go on strike in WA?

The IR Act has no protected industrial action. The Commission may treat industrial action as a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith (s 42B(3)) and can order strikes and bans stopped under s 44 (s 44(6)(ba)). Breach of such an order can lead to a penalty of up to $13,000 against the union, or a summons about its registration (s 84A(5)). In 2008 the Full Bench fined the union $1,500 for a stop-work meeting held in breach of a s 44 order, when the maximum was $2,000 (The Registrar of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission v The State School Teachers' Union of W.A. (Incorporated) [2008] WAIRC 00270 at [1], [143]–[144]).

What happens if bargaining breaks down?

Either negotiating party can ask the Commission to declare that bargaining has ended, if it has bargained in good faith, bargaining has failed and there is no reasonable prospect of agreement (s 42H(1)). The party named in the declaration can then apply within 21 days for an enterprise order, which the Commission writes on terms it considers fair and reasonable (s 42I). Both the schools and TAFE rounds reached a declaration in 2008, and both ended in agreements rather than enterprise orders.

Does the Fair Work Act apply to our bargaining?

No. The State is not a national system employer, so Fair Work enterprise bargaining and protected action do not apply (FW Act s 14(1), s 30B). Parts of the Fair Work Act still reach State employees, including protection from dismissal for union membership or activity (s 772(1)(b)) and the rules on transfer of business if a function is outsourced to a national system employer (s 768AD).

Where is the 2026 schools bargaining up to?

On 3 November 2026 the union's home page said the 2026 draft log of claims was complete and that members were voting on whether to accept it "so we can move forward to negotiations" (sstuwa.org.au). No 2026 bargaining matter between the union and the Department had appeared in the Commission's published decisions by then.

More for WA teachers

We use our software to generate this content with AI assistance. General information about the law, not legal advice. Last checked 3 November 2026.