Murtagh v Corporation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba
Citation: [2023] FCAFC 172
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 2
- Awards cited
- MA000015, MA000017
What happened
Michael Murtagh and Francis O'Mara were employed as teachers at Catholic schools in Queensland. Both were employed on 1 July 2019 when two enterprise agreements became operative with wage increases backdated to 1 July 2019. Murtagh resigned 6 December 2019 and O'Mara resigned 31 December 2019. The employers did not pay them the salary and superannuation increases applicable from 1 July 2019, arguing they only had to pay applicable employees still employed when the agreements came into operation.
What was decided
A Full Court allowed the appeal and declared the teachers entitled to back pay. The court interpreted the enterprise agreements to mean all employees covered by the agreement and employed on the commencement date (1 July 2019) were 'applicable employees' entitled to the increases for that period, even if they later resigned before the agreement was formally approved. Murtagh was entitled to $1,746.95 (salary $1,595.39 plus superannuation $151.56) and O'Mara to $424.24 (salary $387.43 plus superannuation $36.81).
What it means for employers
Enterprise agreements with retrospectively effective wage increases apply to all employees covered by the agreement on the operative date, regardless of whether they resign before formal approval. Employers cannot avoid paying backdated increases by pointing to subsequent resignations.
What it means for employees
If an enterprise agreement provides wage increases backdated to a date when you were employed, you may be entitled to those increases even if you resign after the operative date but before formal approval. Timing of resignation should not defeat entitlements accrued from the operative date.
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/2023/2023fcafc0172Want 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 →