Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (on behalf of the Commonwealth) v Police Federation of Australia (Australian Federal Police Association Branch)
Citation: [2022] FCA 272
What happened
Six AFP employees and the Police Federation of Australia claimed the AFP Commissioner failed to pay them correctly under the Australian Federal Police Enterprise Agreement 2017–2020. The dispute centred on the meaning of section 63 of the agreement, which relates to performance development agreements (PDAs) and their impact on salary increases. The primary judge answered a single question about this section in favour of the Applicant. The AFP Commissioner appealed that decision.
What was decided
The Federal Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. It found a minor error in how the initial question was framed by the primary judge, substituting "ineligible" for "eligible." The case has been sent back to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to resolve remaining issues.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review enterprise agreements, particularly clauses relating to performance reviews and salary increases. Ensure clear definitions are included in the agreement to avoid ambiguity. Consistent application of policies is also crucial when linking pay progression to performance development processes.
What it means for employees
Affected employees should understand how their performance development agreements impact their salaries and career progression. Review your enterprise agreement carefully, and seek clarification from the Respondent if anything is unclear. Know your rights under the relevant clauses.
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/2022/2022fca0272Want 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