the Applicant v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd
Citation: [2018] FCA 899
At a glance
- Awards cited
- MA000050
What happened
Griffin Coal Mining employed maintenance workers rostered to work 14 shifts of 10 hours each over a 3-week cycle, totalling 140 hours comprising 105 ordinary hours and 35 hours of overtime. The roster pattern was seven shifts followed by four days off, then seven shifts followed by three days off, with work spread across weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. the Applicant sought a declaration about how ordinary hours and overtime must be allocated across these shifts under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010.
What was decided
The court determined that the award does not require ordinary hours to be divided evenly across each shift in a roster cycle. The Respondent may roster ordinary hours and overtime in a roster according to the days worked, provided the total average reaches 35 ordinary hours per week over the cycle. Griffin's approach of rostering 10 ordinary hours on weekdays and up to 10 overtime hours on weekend shifts was lawful under the award.
What it means for employers
Employers can arrange ordinary and overtime hours flexibly within a roster cycle provided the total ordinary hours average 35 per week over the cycle. The award does not require even distribution of ordinary hours across each individual shift. Rostering decisions need not accord overtime and ordinary hours equally across all shifts.
What it means for employees
Employees working roster cycles must receive an average of 35 ordinary hours per week calculated over the full cycle. Overtime must be paid at the applicable rate for work outside ordinary hours. Individual shifts may have different proportions of ordinary versus overtime hours, but the weekly average protects the employee.
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/single/2018/2018fca0899Want 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 →