WorkPac Pty Ltd v Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Citation: [2026] FCA 874
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 10
What happened
WorkPac Pty Ltd, a company employing workers in the coal mining industry, disputes how levies for long service leave are calculated for its eligible employees. The Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation administers the scheme and initially claimed WorkPac had underpaid levies. This case concerns the calculation of 'eligible wages' and 'base rate of pay' for 10 sample employees during a period from July 2012 to December 2023, focusing on whether rostered or ordinary hours should be used in calculations.
What was decided
The Federal Court (Younan J) determined specific instructions regarding the calculation of levies for WorkPac's eligible employees. The court ruled that each employee’s 'base rate of pay' would be their flat rate less any casual loading, and this rate should be multiplied by the hours actually worked corresponding to rostered hours. The parties were directed to provide proposed orders for consideration, with a deadline set. Costs will be determined based on written submissions.
What it means for employers
Employers operating in industries with similar long service leave schemes need to carefully review how they calculate employee entitlements and levies. The court’s decision highlights the importance of accurately defining 'base rate of pay' and considering how hours are calculated for levy purposes, particularly when using casual employment agreements.
What it means for employees
Employees working in industries with portable long service leave schemes should understand how their wages are defined for levy calculations. This case clarifies that actual hours worked aligning with rostered shifts are relevant, potentially impacting the amount contributed towards their long service leave entitlements.
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/2026/2026fca0874Want 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 →