Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2022] FCA 1223
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a bus driver in Burnie, Tasmania, claimed he was underpaid for 24 Saturdays worked between October 2015 and March 2020. He argued that under the enterprise agreements (2013 and 2016), Saturdays should have been treated as rostered days off attracting double time penalty rates. However, under a 2012 memorandum of understanding, Saturday work in Burnie had been arranged on a voluntary basis with a sign-up sheet, paid at time and a half. He claimed the time and a half rate was incorrect.
What was decided
The Federal Court allowed the employer's appeal and dismissed the Applicant's claim. The court found that the Saturdays were not rostered days off within the meaning of the enterprise agreements because they were on a voluntary sign-up basis, not part of the regular ongoing roster. The voluntary arrangement, documented in the memorandum of understanding and operated through a sign-up sheet, fell outside the definition of rostered days off. Therefore, the time and a half penalty rate applied, not double time.
What it means for employers
Penalty rates for rostered days off apply only when days are part of the regular roster. Voluntary or special arrangements with different terms may attract different rates. Proper documentation of such arrangements helps establish their meaning and effect.
What it means for employees
Penalty rates depend on how work is actually rostered and structured. Voluntary arrangements may have different terms from the standard roster. Employees should understand the basis on which they are engaged for particular work.
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/2022/2022fca1223Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
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