Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd

The Full Federal Court of Australia, comprising Bell and Gageler JJ, considered a dispute between the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) and Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd. The core of the disagreement concerned the interpretation and application of clause 10.1 of the Enterprise Agreement, which stipulated that employees were entitled to a paid break for "any period of absence from work on account of illness or injury." The CFMMEU contended that this clause entitled employees to be paid for periods of absence due to illness or injury, even if those absences were not covered by the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) or other statutory provisions. Endeavour Coal argued that the clause only applied to absences that were otherwise recognised as legitimate, such as those covered by statutory entitlements.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether clause 10.1 of the Enterprise Agreement mandated payment for all periods of absence due to illness or injury, irrespective of whether those absences were otherwise recognised or compensated under the *Fair Work Act* or other applicable legislation. This required the Court to determine the scope and effect of the contractual provision in light of the statutory framework governing paid personal/carer's leave.

The Court reasoned that the plain language of clause 10.1 indicated a contractual entitlement to payment for any absence due to illness or injury, without imposing a condition that such absence must also be recognised or compensated under the *Fair Work Act*. Bell and Gageler JJ held that the Enterprise Agreement created a standalone entitlement that was not limited by the statutory provisions for personal/carer's leave. They applied the principle of contractual interpretation that clear and unambiguous contractual terms should be given their ordinary meaning, and that such terms are not to be read down by reference to statutory provisions unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication dictates such a limitation. The Court found that the wording of clause 10.1 was sufficiently broad to encompass all absences due to illness or injury, regardless of their statutory recognition.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the primary judge was set aside. The Court declared that clause 10.1 of the Enterprise Agreement entitled employees to be paid for any period of absence from work on account of illness or injury.