Australian Education Union v the Respondent
Citation: [2019] FCA 1511
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000388
What happened
the Applicant worked for Yooralla, a disability services provider, at the Naroo Day Service in Victoria from December 2013 to 2017. She held degrees in Applied Science and Occupational Therapy. She was classified in her contract as an 'attendant carer' but her actual work involved developing individualised training plans, conducting lifestyle programs, supporting skill development and maintaining detailed client progress records. She spent only a small portion of time on personal care activities like assisting with meals.
What was decided
The court found that the Applicant had been misclassified and underpaid. She should have been classified as a Level 3 social and community services employee under the modern award rather than a Level 2 attendant carer. Her primary role was instructing and developing training programs for clients with disabilities, not providing personal care. The misclassification resulted in underpayment over her period of employment.
What it means for employers
Employers must correctly classify employees based on their actual duties, not job titles or contracted roles. An employee whose primary function involves developing programs, training and instruction—not personal care—must be classified accordingly under relevant awards. Classification should be reviewed periodically if duties change.
What it means for employees
If your job involves training, developing programs or supporting skill development for clients with disabilities, you may be entitled to a higher classification than 'attendant carer'. Employees should review their award classification against their actual day-to-day work and challenge misclassification if their real duties differ from their stated role.
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/2019/2019fca1511Want 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 →