Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd
Citation: [2011] FCAFC 67
What happened
The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA) appealed a Federal Court decision regarding public holiday pay for the Applicant, an employee of Woolworths SA Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant was entitled to public holiday rates for working on Anzac Day (April 25, 2010), when she also received those rates for working the following day (April 26, 2010). This arose under clause 48 of the Woolworths (SA, NT and Broken Hill) Certified Agreement 2006.
What was decided
The Full Federal Court dismissed the SDA’s appeal. The court found that while a literal interpretation of the agreement might suggest both days were public holidays, this would lead to an absurd result – effectively giving the employee two Anzac Day holidays with associated penalty rates. The court emphasized considering the industrial context and purpose of the agreement when interpreting its clauses, aligning with previous High Court decisions like Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.
What it means for employers
Employers should be mindful that agreements are interpreted in their broader industrial context and purpose. A literal interpretation isn't always correct if it leads to an unreasonable or unintended outcome. Careful consideration of the overall intention behind clauses is crucial when determining employee entitlements.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand that while agreements may have specific wording, courts consider the overall intent and fairness when interpreting them. Receiving benefits might be limited if doing so creates an illogical or unexpected result.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2011/2011fcafc0067Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →