the Applicant v Svitzer Australia Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 1833
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, represented by the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (AMOU), applied to the Fair Work Commission seeking clarification on his long service leave (LSL) entitlement. He claims continuous employment with Svitzer Australia Pty Ltd and its predecessor companies since November 1997, arguing his LSL should accrue from that date. Svitzer contends his employment was interrupted between October 2005 and August 2006. the Applicant worked as a permanent employee then transitioned to casual work before returning to a permanent role. He argues any interruptions were due to the nature of his casual engagements and slackness of trade, and that Svitzer has not provided evidence to support their claimed break in employment.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined to deal with the dispute on the papers based on consent from both parties. The decision focused on whether the Applicant’s service should be counted from November 1997 or August 2006 for LSL accrual purposes. The Commission considered relevant provisions of the Svitzer Australia Pty Limited National Towage Enterprise Agreement 2023 and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW). A full decision is pending, but the case highlights the complexities surrounding continuous service and long service leave entitlements.
What it means for employers
Employers must maintain accurate employment records to substantiate claims regarding breaks in service. They should be prepared to provide evidence if challenged on start dates for long service leave accrual. Instructions given to employees that impact their ongoing employment, such as transitioning to casual roles to gain experience, require careful consideration and documentation.
What it means for employees
Employees should keep thorough records of their employment history, including correspondence and any instructions received from employers. If there is a dispute about continuous service or long service leave entitlements, employees should seek advice from the Fair Work Commission or relevant unions.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc1833.pdfWant 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 →