Police Federation of Australia (200V) v The Commonwealth of Australia, as represented by the Australian Federal Police
Citation: [2026] FWC 2283
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 8000
What happened
The Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), a branch of the Police Federation of Australia, initiated a dispute with The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This dispute concerns the establishment and operation of an AFP Consultative Committee (ACC) as outlined in clauses 98(23)-(24) of the Australian Federal Police Enterprise Agreement 2024-2027. Attempts at resolving the dispute through conciliation were unsuccessful, leading both parties to seek arbitration by the Fair Work Commission. The core disagreement revolves around who needs to agree on the committee's terms of reference and structure, and how that agreement should be reached.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission ruled that both the terms of reference and the structure of the AFP Consultative Committee must be agreed upon. It found that the AFPA’s interpretation – requiring agreement from the AFP, AFPA, and CPSU – was correct. The Commission rejected the AFP's argument that agreement could be reached through an absence of disagreement or solely between ACC members. The decision emphasized a common-sense approach to interpreting enterprise agreements, considering the practical realities and intentions of the drafters.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure all clauses within enterprise agreements are interpreted consistently and practically. A unilateral determination of key elements like committee structure and terms of reference is unlikely to be valid if an agreement process is stipulated. Consultation with relevant unions is essential for establishing workplace committees and ensuring compliance with enterprise agreements.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand their union's role in negotiating and interpreting enterprise agreements, particularly regarding consultation processes and the establishment of workplace committees. The decision highlights the importance of collective bargaining and union representation in shaping working conditions.
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/2026fwc2283.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. 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 today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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