The applicant sought a contractual benefit of $7,093.80 for alleged non-payment related to overcycle work under his employment contract with the respondent. The dispute centred on the Employment Schedule’s interpretation, specifically clauses 5 and 7 concerning Hours of Work and Overcycle payments. The respondent contended that the applicant was not entitled to the overcycle benefit due to a change in the roster, which was within the contractual rights outlined in the Flexible Working Hours clause.

The crucial question for resolution was whether the respondent denied the applicant a due benefit. Commissioner Tsang found that the contract allowed the respondent to vary the applicant’s roster, supported by the language of the ‘initial roster’ in the Hours of Work Clause and flexibility provisions in the Flexible Working Hours clause. Commissioner Tsang determined that a reasonable person would understand the contract to permit roster changes, including those arising from external factors like COVID-19 flight restrictions.

Addressing the applicant’s argument that changes should be consistent with the Overcycle Clause, Commissioner Tsang held that the contract did not need to specify the mechanism for roster variation. However, this did not negate the respondent’s right to vary the roster and the applicant’s obligation to remain flexible. Commissioner Tsang dismissed the applicant’s claim, emphasising that the varied roster of 28 days on/28 days off meant he was not working ‘over’ the cycle, thus disentitling him from the overcycle rate. Further, the applicant’s subsequent R&R period justified the denial of the overcycle rate. Consequently, Commissioner Tsang concluded that the applicant failed to establish his claim for a denied contractual benefit, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Top of Form

The decision can be read here.