Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 1492
Chevron employees working rotational rosters at remote oil and gas sites took protected industrial action during enterprise bargaining.
Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.
Get legal helpQuick read
Use this to check
Practical read
Practical takeaways
Chevron could reduce the Field Loading Allowance for protected strike periods because that payment depended on employees performing, or being available to perform, their allocated remote-work shifts.
It could not reduce the Transport Allowance. Employees had already earned that payment by arranging, funding and completing their journey to the assembly point before the stoppage.
The employees worked rotational rosters at remote oil and gas locations in north-west Western Australia. During enterprise bargaining, some employees took protected work stoppages from 8 to 21 September 2023.
Chevron applied the same broad payroll approach to two monthly allowances: it reduced each payment in proportion to the time an employee stopped work. The union challenged both reductions. The Court then examined what employees actually had to do to earn each allowance.
| Payment | What it covered | Court's conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Field Loading Allowance | Hardship and other aspects of performing work at remote locations | Connected to working allocated shifts, so section 470 prohibited payment for the strike periods |
| Transport Allowance | The cost and inconvenience of arranging and completing travel from home to the assembly point | Earned before the stoppage, so section 470 did not authorise a reduction |
The outcome did not depend on whether Chevron called a payment an allowance, paid it monthly or expressed it as an annual amount. The Court looked for the act, cost or availability that triggered the entitlement.
The contracts referred to Chevron policies while also saying those policies did not form part of the contract. Remuneration statements identified the allowances, and the Rotational Benefits Policy explained their purpose and eligibility rules. The Court also compared the field loading with the applicable modern award.
That combination mattered. It showed that the field loading was part of the exchange of work for pay, while the transport payment responded to a cost and responsibility completed before the shift.
The case is about protected industrial action, but the document discipline is useful more broadly. Before changing a payment for an absence or stoppage, identify the source and trigger of the entitlement.
Key points
No. The Court reached different conclusions. The Field Loading Allowance could be reduced because the Fair Work Act prohibited payment for the relevant strike periods. Reducing the Transport Allowance breached section 323 because employees had already earned it by completing the required travel arrangements and journey.
The policy described it as compensation for aspects of work at remote locations, including hardship, travel time, accommodation conditions and safety controls. It also substantially overlapped with an industry allowance under the applicable award. Read with the contracts and other remuneration documents, the Court found that the entitlement depended on working allocated shifts.
It compensated employees for arranging and funding travel from home to a designated assembly point. The Court found that an employee earned the entitlement after completing those steps, before the protected industrial action began. It was not a payment for work during the hours stopped.
No. The Court said payment frequency was not enough. The question was whether entitlement to the payment was connected to performance of work, or availability for work, during the industrial action.
No. The hearing was confined to liability. The Court found one contravention concerning the Transport Allowance and listed the matter for further consideration of consequential orders and costs.
Federal Court separates two allowances in strike-pay ruling
The Federal Court held that Chevron could reduce a remote-work loading for protected strike periods but breached the Fair Work Act by reducing a transport allowance employees had already earned.