Triple Zero Victoria v Morton-Pederson

Link copied
Case Copied 41 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Triple Zero Victoria v Morton-Pederson [2025] FCA 419

Appeal from: Morton-Pederson & Ors v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority [2023] VMC 7
File number(s): VID 668 of 2023
Judgment of: MCEVOY J
Date of judgment: 30 April 2025
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from Magistrates’ Court of Victoria – where magistrate found that certain employees covered by the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2015 and the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019 were entitled to be paid a mentoring allowance in accordance with those agreements – where these employees were also paid a workplace trainer increment in accordance with the agreements – whether magistrate erred in construction the agreements – whether employees are entitled to be paid both a mentoring allowance and a workplace trainer increment – appeal allowed – magistrate erred in construction of the agreements – orders of magistrate set aside
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 565(1)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 28(1)
Cases cited:

Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 222 CLR 241

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Australian Public Sector, Professional and Broadcasting Union (1992) CAR 545

Boensch v Pascoe (2019) 268 CLR 593

Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd (2012) 203 FCR 371

Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Health Services Union of Australia v Vision Australia (2000) 98 IR 376

James Cook University v Ridd (2020) 278 FCR 566

King v Melbourne Vicentre Swimming Club Inc (2021) 308 IR 171

Kucks v CSR Limited (1996) 66 IR 182

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2019) 264 CLR 541

Morton-Pederson & Ors v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority [2023] VMC 7

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 67

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene (2018) 264 FCR 536
Division: Fair Work
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 83
Date of hearing: 21 March 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: Chris O’Grady KC and Leigh Howard
Solicitor for the Appellant: Lander & Rogers
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Dan Dwyer on behalf of the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union
Counsel for the Third Respondent: Eugene White
Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Victorian Ambulance Union

ORDERS

VID 668 of 2023
BETWEEN:

TRIPLE ZERO VICTORIA

Appellant
AND:

TRISTAN MORTON-PEDERSON

First Respondent

JASON SMITH

Second Respondent

SYLIVA SCANLAN

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCEVOY J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The orders made by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 11 August 2023 in proceedings N10981635, N10981792, and MAG-CI-220031609 be set aside.

3.Proceedings N10981635, N10981792, and MAG-CI-220031609 in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Triple Zero Victoria v Morton-Pederson and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] FCA 419
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Triple Zero Victoria, an employer of emergency service call handlers, against the decision of a magistrate in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria was heard by the court. The appeal centred on the interpretation of two enterprise agreements, the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2015 and the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019, regarding the entitlements of certain employees who performed both workplace training and mentoring duties. The employees argued that they should receive both a workplace trainer increment and a mentoring allowance, while the employer contended that the workplace training increment was intended to cover all training duties, including mentoring.

The court was required to determine whether the magistrate had erred in interpreting the enterprise agreements, specifically whether the employees were entitled to both a mentoring allowance and a workplace trainer increment. This involved examining the language of the agreements, the nature of the duties performed by the employees, and the intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreements. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate's interpretation was consistent with the principles of contract law and the context in which the agreements were made.

The court found that the magistrate had erred in the construction of the enterprise agreements. The agreements provided for separate entitlements for workplace training and mentoring duties, and the court held that the magistrate had misconstrued the agreements by not recognising the distinct nature of the duties and entitlements. The court concluded that the workplace training increment was not intended to cover mentoring duties, and that employees who performed both roles were entitled to the separate allowances provided for in the agreements. The appeal was allowed, the magistrate's orders were set aside, and the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the orders made by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria on 11 August 2023 in proceedings N10981635, N10981792, and MAG-CI-220031609 be set aside, and those proceedings be dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 11 August 2023 in proceedings N10981635, N10981792, and MAG-CI-220031609 be set aside.

3. Proceedings N10981635, N10981792, and MAG-CI-220031609 in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow I have determined that the learned magistrate erred in his legal construction of the relevant enterprise agreements on certain grounds advanced by the appellant. The appeal will therefore be allowed, the orders made by the Magistrates’ Court set aside, and the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court will be dismissed. BACKGROUND The appellant employs persons to attend to emergency telephone calls and dispatch emergency services for police, the State Emergency Service, fire and ambulance services across Victoria. Some of these employees are employed as Workplace Trainers. Other employees are engaged from time to time to mentor other employees. The two enterprise agreements which are relevant to these proceedings are the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2015 (2015 Agreement) and the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019 (2019 Agreement). These agreements confer entitlements on, relevantly, the appellant’s Workplace Trainers and Mentors. Workplace Trainers are paid to perform training duties through a Workplace Training increment as part of their annual salary (see clauses 21.6.1-21.6.3, 21.8.12-21.8.15, 21.1 and 21.2 of the 2015 Agreement, and clauses 25.2, 25.3, 25.4.12-25.4.15 of the 2019 Agreement), whilst a Mentor is paid, in addition to the salary attaching to their classification, an hourly allowance on each occasion they perform mentoring duties (see clause 21.10 of the 2015 Agreement and clause 25.11 of the 2019 Agreement). The proceedings before the learned magistrate concerned three concurrent claims that were made by the present respondents as employees of the appellant for the payment of the Mentor Allowance under 2015 Agreement and the 2019 Agreement. At the times relevant to the claims, all three employees were appointed as Workplace Trainers. They contended in the Magistrates’ Court that they should have been paid the Mentor Allowance, in addition to the Workplace Training increment paid as part of their annual salary, at the times that they performed mentoring duties. The appellant argued that the Workplace Training increment paid as part of their annual salary is intended to, and has always, compensated them for all training duties, including mentoring. The learned magistrate found for the three employees, ordered compensation, and imposed civil penalties on the appellant that totalled $30,000. Compensation was agreed between the parties, and was done by reference to the appellant’s records which showed each occasion the employees had performed mentoring duties on their shifts. In the proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court the parties tendered a statement of agreed facts, which they jointly adopted as a chronology in this court. The appellant relies on the evidence of two of its employees before the learned magistrate, being that of Ms Michelle Smith, a Senior Strategic Advisor, and Mr Mario Matic, a Senior Manager Learning & Performance. The appellant also relies on written submissions dated 13 February 2025, and reply submissions dated 6 March 2025.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Grounds 1 and 2(h)-2(i) must also succeed. CONCLUSION It follows from the appellant’s success with grounds 1 and 2(a)-2(e) and 2(h)-2(i) that the appeal must be allowed. Consistently with the relief sought by the appellant in its notice of appeal, the orders made by the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 11 August 2023 in proceedings N10981635, N10981792 and MAG-CI-003109 should be set aside and those proceedings dismissed (see s 28(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). The appellant is correct to observe that the stay ordered by Besanko J on 18 September 2023 is automatically discharged upon these orders being made. There will be no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.