Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 19

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 19

Employees were not entitled under the enterprise agreement to payment for rostered shifts they refused to work during protected industrial action once they had surpassed the annual hours threshold, as payment was contingent on being available or attending work. Section 470(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) expressly prohibited employers from making payment in relation to the duration of the industrial action. Both salary components were thus captured by s 470(1), and payment was lawfully withheld.

Parties
Appellant: Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union; First Respondent: Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enterprise Agreement Interpretation, Industrial Action, Payment During Strikes, Protected Industrial Action, Statutory Construction
Industrial Law Employment Law Enterprise Agreement Interpretation Industrial Action Payment During Strikes Protected Industrial Action Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Appellant

Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Brisbane Container Terminals Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relevant enterprise agreement entitled employees to payment after reaching an annual hours threshold regardless of attendance or willingness to work shifts
  2. 2 Whether the employers' refusal to pay employees who refused allocated shifts during protected industrial action contravened the agreement or the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
  3. 3 Proper construction and application of ss 470(1) and 471(4) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Employees were not entitled under the enterprise agreement to payment for rostered shifts they refused to work during protected industrial action once they had surpassed the annual hours threshold, as payment was contingent on being available or attending work. Section 470(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) expressly prohibited employers from making payment in relation to the duration of the industrial action. Both salary components were thus captured by s 470(1), and payment was lawfully withheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.