the Applicant v Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd T/A Shell Australia
Citation: [2026] FWC 2339
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, an INLEC Technician employed by Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd T/A Shell Australia on the Prelude floating liquid natural gas facility, applied to the Fair Work Commission regarding a dispute arising from the Shell Prelude Enterprise Agreement 2022. Shell directed the Applicant to work a short nine-day swing to facilitate a shift panel change from A to D in February 2025. This required him to demobilise early from his existing roster cycle. The dispute concerns whether Shell could direct this shortened work period under Clause 5.2.6 of the agreement.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Shell’s interpretation of Clause 5.2.6 was correct and upheld their direction for the Applicant to work a short swing. the Commissioner agreed with Shell's argument that the clause permits variations to an employee’s roster, including shortened swings, to facilitate shift panel changes. They also noted that the Applicant did not suffer any financial disadvantage as a result of the change. The Commission rejected the applicant’s interpretation which argued that only extended off-duty periods were permissible when a Shift Panel change was requested by the Company.
What it means for employers
Employers can direct employees to work varied shifts, including shortened swings, to facilitate shift panel changes, even if it means deviating from the standard roster pattern. This is consistent with the purpose of enterprise agreements to allow for operational flexibility and safety considerations. Employers should ensure that any such changes are discussed with the employee and do not result in financial disadvantage.
What it means for employees
Employees may be required to work a shortened shift or other variations to their usual roster when a shift panel change is directed by an employer, even if it disrupts the standard 40/60 roster cycle. Employees should review their enterprise agreements carefully and seek clarification from their union or legal representation if they disagree with such directions.
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/2026fwc2339.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 →