Thiess Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2020] FCAFC 198
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 151
What happened
the Applicant and 150 other employees worked for Thiess Pty Ltd at the Wheatstone Project near Onslow, Western Australia, a major LNG construction site. Workers were employed on a fly-in/fly-out basis and accommodated at a distance from the worksite. They were bussed from accommodation to a security gate, then to the crib hut and work areas on the 10-square-kilometre site. A dispute arose over when their paid working hours ended each day: whether at the crib hut on site or at the security gate when exiting the site (a difference of approximately 20 minutes per day for the Applicant).
What was decided
The Full Bench upheld the primary judge's decision. Project Working Hours under the Thiess Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2012 finish 'at the inside of the Site Employee access gates', meaning at the security gate at the site perimeter immediately inside the gate, not at the crib hut. This entitles employees to be paid for the travel time from the crib hut to the site exit gates. The appeal was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Enterprise agreements must be interpreted fairly according to their terms. Employees are entitled to be paid for all time spent on work-related activities within the site, including travel between work areas. Broad language in agreements must be given proper effect.
What it means for employees
Employees on large remote project sites are entitled to be paid for travel time between accommodation and work areas if the contract specifies hours finish at the site exit. Pay entitlements should be calculated according to the proper interpretation of the contract.
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/2020/2020fcafc0198Want 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 →