the Applicant v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2670
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a casual employee of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd, initiated a dispute regarding the interpretation of '10 working days' in clause 71.3(a) of their enterprise agreement with the Transport Workers Union. the Applicant was suspended for investigation following a motor vehicle incident and wants to be paid for those suspension days. He argues 'working days' refers to business operating days, while Linfox contends it means his usual workdays. the Applicant initially commenced employment in 2005, converted to permanent part-time in 2016, then back to casual in 2017. His role involves delivering groceries using a heavy vehicle.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter initially because the Applicant hadn’t completed Step 3 of the Dispute Settlement Procedure. After completion, the parties agreed to have the dispute decided on written submissions. The Commission is currently considering whether '10 working days' in clause 71.3(a) refers to business operating days or the Applicant’s usual workdays. Both parties presented arguments and supporting data regarding his working patterns.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clarity in enterprise agreements, particularly when defining terms like 'working days'. Ambiguity can lead to disputes over entitlements. Employers need to consider the implications of interpreting clauses based on an employee's usual workdays versus business operating days, especially for casual employees with variable schedules.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand their rights and obligations under enterprise agreements. If there is ambiguity in a clause, it’s important to follow dispute resolution procedures outlined in the agreement before escalating to the Fair Work Commission. Casual employees need to be aware that 'usual days of work' can be a factor in determining 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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2670.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 →