Nield v Mathieson
Citation: [2014] FCAFC 74
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000198
What happened
Beth Mathieson worked at Marjorie and Keith Nield's mixed business (milk bar and takeaway) from May 2006 to February 2011. She initially worked as a casual for ~three months with wages paid. From August 2006 she lived on the premises and worked full-time for board and lodging plus $25/day (later ceased). She worked long hours, managed the business, and received no further wages for five years despite Centrelink entitlements after 2007. She also paid $20,000 to the Nields and lived in a property they owned as a tenant.
What was decided
The court held Mathieson was an employee throughout her entire engagement and entitled to Fast Food Industry Award 2010 rates from commencement. Award entitlements cannot be waived. The court ordered payment of $388,688.62 in underpayments including superannuation and annual leave, plus $20,000 for a contractual claim to recover money she had paid to the Nields, with interest on both amounts. The Nields' counterclaim for rental arrears was partly upheld but offset.
What it means for employers
Employers cannot avoid award obligations through informal arrangements such as board and lodging, despite agreement by employees. Employment status and award coverage are determined by the nature of the relationship, not voluntary labels. Long-term unpaid work exposes employers to massive backdated liability.
What it means for employees
Even informal or family-like arrangements with employers are employment relationships protected by awards. Underpayment compounds over time. Employees should insist on written agreements that comply with awards and retain records of work performed.
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/2014/2014fcafc0074Want 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 →