Skip to main content
FCAFederal Court of Australia · 16 April 2014

Sydney Night Patrol and Inquiry Company Limited t/as SNP Security v Pulleine

Citation: [2014] FCA 385

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

Noel Pulleine, a security officer, worked for Sydney Night Patrol on a fortnightly roster from March 2011. Under the Security Services Industry Award 2010, he claimed he was entitled to long breaks after 48 hours of ordinary time. Sydney Night Patrol disputed that the long break provisions applied to fortnightly roster employees and refused to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 48 hours between breaks.

What was decided

The Court dismissed Sydney Night Patrol's appeal. Justice Katzmann found that clause 21.4(b) of the Award was a 'blanket provision' applying to all employees regardless of roster cycle. The clause required long breaks after 48 hours of ordinary time. Sydney Night Patrol was in breach by failing to provide these breaks and failing to pay overtime rates for hours worked beyond 48 hours.

What it means for employers

Employers cannot exclude certain roster cycles from award long-break entitlements. Award provisions must be interpreted to avoid absurd results where some employees would lack entitlements others possess. Employers must provide specified breaks and pay overtime accordingly.

What it means for employees

Security officers and other workers are entitled to long breaks after 48 hours of ordinary time regardless of their roster cycle. Employers must pay overtime for work done beyond these breaks.

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.

modern-award-variationunderpayment

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca0385

Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

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

All cases