Interpretation of agreements page 7 of 14

136 articles are classified in All Articles > Agreements and bargaining > Interpretation of agreements


Two jobs don't add up to overtime: Court

In a significant decision on multi-hiring arrangements, a court has ruled that an Australia Post employee holding two "separate and distinct" part-time positions could not base overtime and other entitlements on combined hours.

BHP subsidiary's direction not reasonable: Tribunal

In a novel decision on the need to consider alternative duties for incapacitated workers, the FWC has found an agreement clause requiring directions to be reasonable trumped BHP Coal's common law right to refuse to allow a mineworker to perform only part of his job.

Court lowers bar for roster allowances

Employers are not automatically entitled to reduce roster allowances when working hours fall below an agreement's "indicative" threshold, a court has found.


ASU to fight hot desking push

The ASU is appealing a finding that the ATO can require employees to 'hot desk' regardless of whether they perform field work, the union arguing it wouldn't have endorsed the 2017 agreement if it had been made aware of the agency's intention.

FWC bench made "significant error", but was not biased: Court

An FWC full bench's decision to refuse an employer's appeal might have involved a significant procedural error, but a senior member's "terse" exchange with the company's counsel did not support a charge of bias, a court has found.

Employer has right to modify shift penalty arrangements: Bench

An FWC full bench has quashed a finding that the terms of CSL's agreement did not empower the Commission to resolve a dispute about the payment of shift penalties, holding that the deal does not stop the employer moving from an averaging system to a "time worked" regime.

Sub-1% workforce cut not a "major workplace change": Court

The Federal Court has dismissed the nursing union's bid to stop Bupa cutting jobs, finding that 23 potential redundancies in a workforce of 3000 did not constitute a "major" change that would trigger an agreement's consultation clause.

Court makes crucial ruling on casual conversion

In a landmark judgment upholding a casual employee's right to convert to permanency on a "like for like" basis, the Federal Court has concluded it should fine Toll more than $40,000 and order it to compensate a freight handler for refusing to grant his request for full-time employment from May last year.