Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (188V) v Visy Board Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2455
At a glance
- Awards cited
- MA000174
What happened
The dispute concerns how Visy Board Pty Ltd allocates pre-shift overtime at its Smithfield and Warwick Farm sites. In November 2024, Visy introduced a new overtime availability process via a memorandum dated January 6, 2025, where employees mark their availability for overtime. Employees who are 'Available' may be contacted for pre-shift overtime after they have left work and before their next shift. The Applicant argues this constitutes a call back under the Visy (Smithfield, Warwick Farm, Dandenong, O’Connor) Enterprise Agreement 2022, while Visy claims it's voluntary overtime.
What was decided
Deputy President Slevin determined that pre-shift overtime contacted after an employee leaves work is considered a 'call back' under clause 6.5.1 of the Graphics Arts Award 2000 (incorporated into the Visy Enterprise Agreement). This means employees are entitled to call-back rates, including double ordinary hourly rates and a minimum of three hours’ pay or payment in lieu. The decision focused on the wording of 'call back' and its context within the award, finding it applies when an employee is contacted after finishing their last shift.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review how they manage overtime allocation to ensure compliance with enterprise agreements and awards. Introducing voluntary systems doesn’t automatically negate call-back obligations if employees are contacted outside of normal working hours without prior notification. Clear communication about overtime expectations is essential.
What it means for employees
Employees who are regularly contacted for pre-shift overtime after leaving work should check their relevant award or enterprise agreement to see if they are entitled to call-back rates. If unsure, seek advice from a union representative or the Fair Work Commission.
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/2026fwc2455.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 →