McLean v Tedman

McLean v Tedman concerned a dispute between an employer, McLean, and an employee, Tedman, regarding the latter's entitlement to long service leave. Tedman had been employed by McLean as a cleaner from 1968 until 1981. The employer argued that Tedman's employment was intermittent and that he had not completed the continuous period of service required by the relevant legislation. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Tedman's employment, which involved periods of absence due to industrial disputes and the employer's own actions, constituted "continuous service" for the purposes of the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether breaks in service, particularly those caused by strikes or lockouts, interrupted the continuity of employment as defined by the Act.

The High Court, by majority, held that Tedman was entitled to long service leave. The majority reasoned that the Act defined "continuous service" in a way that excluded certain interruptions, but that strikes and lockouts, unless they were of a duration that indicated a complete cessation of the employment relationship, did not necessarily break continuity. The court applied the principle that the legislation should be interpreted to give effect to its remedial purpose, which was to provide employees with a reward for long and faithful service. The employer's argument that the breaks in service were so significant as to break the continuity of employment was rejected.