Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of paid personal/carer's leave entitlements under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The dispute arose between Mondelez, a national system employer, and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, representing employees Ms Triffitt and Mr McCormack. These employees worked 12-hour shifts and their enterprise agreement provided for 96 hours of paid personal/carer's leave per annum, which Mondelez credited to their accounts. The core of the disagreement was whether the "10 days" of paid personal/carer's leave stipulated in section 96(1) of the Act referred to ten 24-hour periods or ten "working days" based on an employee's specific shift pattern.

The legal issue before the High Court was to determine the meaning of "10 days" in section 96(1) of the *Fair Work Act*. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether this phrase referred to a "notional day," calculated as one-tenth of an employee's ordinary hours of work over a two-week period, or a "working day," representing a portion of a 24-hour period that an employee would ordinarily work. This interpretation was crucial for determining the quantum of paid personal/carer's leave employees were entitled to, particularly those working non-standard shift lengths.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Full Court. The majority reasoned that the term "day" in section 96(1) should be interpreted as a "notional day." This means that the entitlement of "10 days" equates to an amount of paid personal/carer's leave equivalent to an employee's ordinary hours of work over a two-week period, or 1/26 of their ordinary hours of work in a year. The Court rejected the alternative construction that "10 days" referred to ten individual working days, finding that such an interpretation would lead to absurd and inequitable outcomes, contrary to the legislative purpose of fairness and flexibility within the *Fair Work Act*. The Court declared that "10 days" in section 96(1) means a notional day, calculated as one-tenth of an employee's ordinary hours of work in a two-week period.