In our Autumn Bulletin 2013, we discussed the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) decision to reject Mr Jeffrey Lamb’s claim that in setting a new roster, Bunnings had failed to give proper regard for his family responsibilities and, in doing so, failed to give proper consideration to the roster change provisions in his enterprise agreement (Agreement).

The dispute focused on the interpretation of a clause in the Agreement which related to changes in rosters, and expressly stated “[I]n setting rosters Bunnings will have regard for the family responsibilities and other significant commitments…”

As we went to press with the Autumn Bulletin 2013, Mr Lamb had appealed the decision.

A Full Bench of the FWC dismissed Mr Lamb’s appeal1, finding that Bunnings:

  • did have regard to the family responsibilities of the four employees in Mr Lamb’s work area, insofar as such factors were raised by them; and
  • had consulted with Mr Lamb about the new roster and had even reformulated the roster to reduce the Friday/Saturday requirement for Mr Lamb.

The Full Bench also found that Bunnings motivation to increase specialised staff on its busiest days was a legitimate action.