Pacific National Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union

[2026] FCAFC 135

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Industrial Law
1. appeal from decision of the South Australian Employment Court
1. whether the terms of various provisions of the Enterprise Agreement prescribed maximum shift lengths
1. appeal allowed

A contravention of s 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires proof that a term of an enterprise agreement imposes an enforceable obligation on a party — declaratory or permissive provisions that do not expressly or impliedly impose binding obligations are not 'terms' capable of contravention, even where they prescribe maximum shift lengths or rostering limits.
Where an enterprise agreement contains a 'local agreements' attachment expressed to prevail over the body of the agreement and rostering provisions to the extent of inconsistency, a provision contemplating overtime payment for hours worked beyond rostered shift limits is inconsistent with — and prevails over — provisions that would otherwise impose hard caps on actual shift lengths, including emergency extension provisions that form an integrated part of the hard-cap scheme.
A finding of 'serious contravention' under s 557A of the Fair Work Act requires proof that the person 'knowingly contravened' the provision and that the conduct was 'part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons' — knowledge of a 'likely breach' is insufficient to satisfy the knowledge element, and the fact that conduct 'affected' multiple employees does not without more establish a systematic pattern of conduct.