Insight,

High Court grants special leave to appeal the controversial decision of the full Federal Court regarding personal leave

AU | EN
Current site :    AU   |   EN
Australia
Belgium
China
China Hong Kong SAR
Germany
Italy
Japan
Singapore
Spain
UAE
United Kingdom
United States
Global

Last Friday, the High Court granted special leave to appeal the controversial decision of the full Federal Court regarding personal leave in Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU & Ors [2019] FCFCA 138.

In August, Justices Bromberg and Rangiah (O'Callaghan dissenting) ruled the correct interpretation of a 'day' in section 96(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) was the 'portion of a 24 hour period that would otherwise be allotted to working'. The decision has resulted in workers on 12 hour shifts being entitled to 120 hours of personal leave per year overturning the longstanding and widespread practice that full time employees are entitled to 76 hours of personal leave per year irrespective of rostered hours or shift patterns.

For more detail on this landmark decision see our earlier article here.

The decision has left employers uncertain on how to calculate leave entitlements under the FW Act with Mondelez International commenting it has created "inequality between employees in the same workplace who complete the same work however on different rosters". IR Minister Christian Porter also weighed in on the debate stating the decision had to be appealed given the consequences to employers of exposure of up to a further $2 billion per year
in paying employee leave entitlements based on this interpretation of the statutory provisions. 

Employers should watch this space as the outcome of the appeal has significant potential implications from both a cost and payroll management perspective where non-standard shift arrangements are utilised as well as for part time employees' leave entitlements.

We expect the appeal to be heard in the first half of 2020.


LATEST THINKING
Insight
On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

Insight
The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Insight
Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022