Bottomley v Commonwealth

In the High Court of Australia, Charles David Bottomley (the plaintiff) brought an action against the Commonwealth (the defendant). The plaintiff, a line foreman employed by the Postmaster-General's Department, claimed payment for time spent travelling to and from work camps outside his ordinary hours of duty. This claim was based on an award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as varied by subsequent orders, which provided for payment for "travelling time" under specific conditions. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's claim was concluded by a determination of a Board established under the award, which had found that time spent travelling between a camp and work locality was not "travelling time."

The central legal issue before the High Court was to determine whether the time spent by the plaintiff travelling between his departmental camp and the work site, in excess of his ordinary hours, constituted "travelling time" as defined by the relevant award and its variations. Specifically, the court had to consider the exclusion in the definition of "travelling time" which stated it did not include "time of travelling in which the employee is required to perform any duty while travelling or to ride a horse or cycle or to walk or drive a vehicle." The court also had to consider whether the defendant's defence, based on a prior determination by a Board of Interpretation, was valid.

Starke J. held that the time spent by the plaintiff walking between the camp and the work site was not "travelling time" under the award, although it might be payable as overtime. However, the plaintiff had not claimed overtime rates. Conversely, the time spent by the plaintiff travelling in conveyances that he did not work or drive, such as trolleys and hired horse conveyances, was considered "travelling time" under the award, provided it was in excess of ordinary duty hours and met the other criteria. The court found that the defendant had not proven its defence based on the Board of Interpretation's determination, as no binding determination had been made by the Board.

The court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to payment at ordinary rates for the time spent travelling in conveyances between the camp and the work site, in excess of his ordinary duty hours. The parties were to adjust the amount payable, with liberty to refer to the Principal Registrar in case of disagreement. The plaintiff was awarded costs, as he had, in the main, established his right in principle.