Application by Transport Workers' Union of Australia
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 171
What happened
The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU) sought minimum standards orders (MSOs) under the Fair Work Act to cover 'last mile' delivery workers engaged by digital labour platform operators (DLPOs) and road transport businesses (RTBs). The proposed MSOs included terms regarding insurance requirements for workers and a ‘Bluecard’ safety awareness program. Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd, Australian Industry Group, Australia Post, Star Track Express Pty Ltd and StarTrack Retail Pty Ltd raised jurisdictional issues, arguing the provisions were commercially driven or already covered by existing legislation.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found it did not consider that the insurance term was prohibited under s 536KM(1)(c). However, it decided to hear further evidence and submissions regarding whether the Bluecard term was prohibited under s 536KM(1)(e). The hearing is scheduled to commence on 20 July 2026. The Commission will consider if the provisions affect the terms and conditions of engagement or are comprehensively dealt with by existing laws.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly those using digital labour platforms or engaging road transport contractors, should review their insurance practices and worker training programs. Ensure any requirements align with legal obligations and avoid duplicating responsibilities outlined in existing legislation or contracts. Consider whether any commercial arrangements are impacting the terms of engagement for workers.
What it means for employees
Workers engaged as 'last mile' delivery drivers should be aware of potential changes to insurance and safety training requirements. The outcome of this case will impact their entitlements, so it’s important to stay informed about developments regarding minimum standards orders.
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/2026fwcfb171.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 →