Resources: Blog

Federal Circuit Court dismisses claim for cumulative overtime


A guy, two part-time jobs and an overtime claim

Multi-hire arrangements are a popular way for employees to supplement their income and to have flexibility.

It is increasingly common for workers, particularly those employed on a part-time basis, to hold multiple jobs. Usually the positions will be with different employers and are worked at different days and times.

In Lacson v Australian Postal Corporation [2018] FCCA 511, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard an underpayment application by an employee who claimed that the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) did not pay his overtime, rest relief and meal allowances for the work he performed across two part-time positions between October 2010 and October 2014.

Australia Post initially employed the employee in 2001 as a Postal Sorting Officer (PSO). From 2004, he performed the duties of this position from 3pm to 7:30pm. Australia Post also employed him from 2002 as a Postal Delivery Officer (PDO) which he performed between 6am to 9am at another location.

The employee claimed that Australia Post should have added the hours he performed in the morning as a PDO with the work he performed as a PSO for the purpose of calculating his entitlements to overtime, rest relief and meal allowances. The employee submitted that his work in both roles should have been combined because:

  • they were both covered by the same enterprise agreements;
  • the relevant enterprise agreements did not provide for multi-hiring arrangements; and
  • the proper construction of each enterprise agreement supported this approach.

The employee submitted that the roles could only be treated as separate arrangements where the roles were covered by different industrial instruments or where an enterprise agreement included a multi-hiring clause.

Australia Post argued that, for the purpose of calculating entitlements, the PDO role and the PSO role were two separate and distinct positions – they were separate engagements under separate employment contracts. It relied upon subsection 52(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) which states:

(2) A reference in this Act to an enterprise agreement applying to an employee is a reference to the agreement applying to the employee in relation to particular employment.

The Court noted that the relevant issue was whether the employee’s employment in the PDO role was correctly treated as separate and distinct from his employment in the PSO role.

The Court noted that the employee had two separate and distinct part-time roles which he commenced at different times and which were classified differently under the enterprise agreement.

In the Court’s view, subsection 52(2) permitted an enterprise agreement to apply to each separate employment with the same employer. It referred to the Fair Work Bill explanatory memorandum which provided that in relation so subsection 52(2):

… if a national system employee has more than one job, each job is treated separately in determining the effect of an award or agreement on the employee’s entitlements in relation to each job.

The Court dismissed the employee’s claim, finding that the employee’s hours should not be calculated together and that Australia Post did not breach the enterprise agreement for treating the positions as separate engagements.


Lessons for employers

Multi-hire arrangements are a popular way for employees to supplement their income and to have flexibility. To minimise any potential claims that such arrangements should be bundled together, employers should carefully prepare separate contracts of employment for each position, with separate job descriptions and separate employee numbers and require the employee to complete separate timesheets for each position.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.


Conflicts of interest in the employment relationship

No competition

Many standard employment contracts contain a clause that addresses an employee’s obligations in relation to secondary employment and conflicts of interest. The obligation is generally that an employee will not act in a manner that conflicts with the interests of their employer or their duties as an employee. This contractual obligation is reflective of the common law duty that an employee must not engage in conduct that is incompatible with their duties to their employer


Folau sacking case could change how employers deal with discrimination

"Impossible position" for employers

As the Israel Folau saga enters another chapter, our Managing Director Athena Koelmeyer shared her thoughts with Smart Company’s News Editor, Matthew Elmas, on how this case will potentially affect all employers and employees not just sporting organisations and athletes.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.