Keller Pty Ltd v CFMEU (105N)
Citation: [2026] FWC 3036
At a glance
- Awards cited
- MA000137
What happened
Keller Pty Ltd and the CFMEU are disputing the interpretation of clause 36.4 of their Enterprise Agreement regarding overtime meal allowances for employees receiving Living Away From Home Allowance (LAFHA). Keller contends that LAFHA covers meal expenses, so employees shouldn't receive additional meal allowance during overtime. The CFMEU argues employees are entitled to the allowance as per the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2010. The dispute was initially decided by the Victorian Building Industry Disputes Panel in favour of the CFMEU’s interpretation, which Keller is now seeking review of.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission affirmed the decision of the Victorian Building Industry Disputes Panel. It found clause 36.4 of the Enterprise Agreement and clause 20.2 of the Award were not ambiguous. The Commission agreed with the CFMEU that employees receiving LAFHA are still entitled to overtime meal allowances if they aren't provided with a suitable meal. Keller’s argument about ‘double-dipping’ was rejected, as there is no indication LAFHA covers overtime meal expenses.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review enterprise agreements and awards to understand the interplay between different clauses and allowances. Ensure clarity in how living away from home allowances interact with other entitlements like overtime meal allowances. Ambiguous language can lead to costly disputes and interpretations that favour employees.
What it means for employees
Employees receiving LAFHA may still be entitled to overtime meal allowances if not provided a suitable meal, even if their employer argues otherwise. Familiarise yourself with the relevant clauses in your enterprise agreement and award.
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/2026fwc3036.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 →