Two Victoria Police officers were injured while seconded to the Dedicated Source Team (DST), the unit that managed the force’s confidential human intelligence sources. The Fair Work Commission has found that Victoria Police did not have to keep paying them the unit’s allowances after their secondments ended, even though both remained on accident make-up pay. Accident make-up pay tops up the income of an injured worker with an accepted workers compensation claim to their full pay, or to 90% of it in the second year.
The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch), referred to in the decision as TPAV, applied under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Commission to deal with a dispute about how clause 77 of the Victoria Police (Police Officers, Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2025 operates.
For the purpose of this clause ‘full pay’ means the Employee’s ordinary rate of pay and includes any allowance which would ordinarily be payable in respect of every pay period per year.
Under clause 77.2, an employee with an accepted workers compensation claim receives accident make-up pay at full pay for the first 52 weeks, then at 90% of full pay from week 53 to week 104. Recruits do not receive the second period.
No DST role was a substantive position. Officers were seconded for a defined period and, when it finished, went back to their substantive role or were offered a further fixed-term secondment. A Victoria Police witness gave uncontested evidence that secondments generally ran for 12 months or two years depending on the role, and each had a set end date. The DST was permanently disbanded on 28 June 2025.
While in the DST, the officers received the Commuted Overtime Allowance, paid “in lieu of any payment for overtime worked or any recall to work”, and one also received the Disturbance Allowance. Neither allowance applies to their substantive positions. Victoria Police stopped paying both allowances to the first officer from 25 May 2023, and stopped paying the commuted overtime allowance to the second officer from 29 December 2024. The Commission anonymised the officers and the witness at the parties’ request, because of the nature of DST work.
that clause 77.1 is not ambiguous and fixes ‘full pay’ at the point the entitlement to accident make-up pay arises. It argued that Victoria Police was importing distinctions found elsewhere in the agreement, such as ‘temporary placements’ and ‘owning’ versus ‘occupying’ a position, into a clause that does not contain them. It said the injuries occurred during extended DST assignments and ended both officers’ careers.
that the allowances compensate for the demands of DST work and that it is “inutile and unnecessary” to pay them once an employee no longer performs that work. It argued that “it strains reality” to suggest the drafters of a publicly funded agreement intended the allowances to continue after an officer moved to a role that does not attract them.
that the words “would ordinarily be payable” are not ambiguous and “simply describe that full pay is that which an employee would normally receive had they not been in receipt of AMUP”. Read with the words “their rate of pay” in clause 77.2, an individual’s particular circumstances must be considered.
The Commissioner began with the plain meaning of clause 77, considered as a whole and in its context. He accepted that clause 77 does not distinguish seconded from substantive positions, unlike other clauses. He said that while such an absence “may ordinarily be persuasive”, it did not mean no distinction could be made once context and purpose were considered.
TPAV argued both officers had served successive DST secondments and would likely have been extended. Commissioner Fox did not accept that a further secondment could be assumed, and found each secondment ended on its specified date. He said TPAV’s approach “leads to a perverse outcome”, because an injured officer would receive more than they would have received had they not been injured and their secondment had ended.
Commissioner Fox said: “I do not accept that the drafters of the Agreement intended for an employee to receive more than that which they would have ordinarily received because they sustained a workplace injury.”
The Commission answered the question put to it in the affirmative: the non-payment of the allowances was consistent with clause 77. The matter was heard in Melbourne on 4 June 2026 and decided on 14 October 2026 in [2026] FWC 3946.
At a glance
- Parties: Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v The Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria Police
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3946, Commissioner Fox
- Section: s.739 Fair Work Act 2009; clause 77 of the Victoria Police Enterprise Agreement 2025
- Outcome: Non-payment of the commuted overtime and disturbance allowances after the secondments ended found consistent with clause 77
- Who it affects: Employees covered by the 2025 Agreement whose secondment to an allowance-attracting role ends while they are receiving accident make-up pay
On this reading, ‘full pay’ under clause 77 is assessed against what the individual would have been paid as their circumstances change, not fixed at the date of injury. The agreement covers police officers, protective services officers, police reservists and police recruits.
Source: [2026] FWC 3946
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.