Rail safety coaches at Sydney Trains are not entitled to the Workplace Training and Assessor Allowance of $5.88 an hour, the Fair Work Commission has found, because assessing the competence of protection officers forms a core component of the role the coaches are already paid to perform.
At a glance
- Parties: Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Sydney Trains
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3486, Deputy President Boyce, Sydney, 14 September 2026
- Provisions: s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and clause 86.7 of the Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink Enterprise Agreement 2025
- Outcome: No entitlement to the allowance. Dispute application dismissed.
- Who it affects: Rail safety coaches employed by Sydney Trains, and employees covered by the agreement, which has a nominal term running from 7 August 2025 to 1 July 2028
Assessment is built into competence assurance
Under clause 86.7, an employee is entitled to the allowance for work time spent undertaking training or assessment duties that the employer has directed them to perform. That entitlement is subject to exclusions, one of which removes it where training or assessment already forms a core component of the role for which the employee is paid.
The WTAA does not apply: where the role in respect of which the Employee is remunerated includes Training and/or Assessment as a core component
The clause is new and became operative on 7 August 2025, when the agreement commenced. The agreement was approved in [2025] FWCA 2397 and applies to Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink and their respective employees. The RTBU is covered by it.
Conciliation did not resolve the dispute. Neither party contested the Commission’s jurisdiction to arbitrate under clause 8 of the agreement and s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and Deputy President Boyce made the same finding. At the hearing, the issue narrowed to whether assessments, as defined in clause 86.7(a)(ii), are a core component of a coach’s role.
What each side argued
that coaches do not undertake “Assessment” or “Training” as those terms are defined in clause 86.7(a), or that if they do, the work is not a core component of the role. It also submitted that since at least 2022 coaches had been required to perform training and assessment tasks beyond their role descriptions, including in-field recertification of protection officers, training materials tasks and protection officer workbook tasks, which brought them within clause 86.7.
that the dispute should be dismissed because assessment is, and always has been, a core component of a coach’s role, and that the union’s remaining contentions only needed to be analysed if that proposition failed.
that the exclusion covers both training and assessment, and that a finding that either is performed by coaches as a core component of their role is sufficient for the exclusion to apply. “The RTBU’s case in these proceedings rests upon Training and/or Assessment either not being undertaken by Coaches, or not being a core component of a Coaches’ role. I have rejected both of these contentions.”
A “core component” can extend to minor parts
Applying the interpretation principles set out in James Cook University v Ridd, the Deputy President held that neither “core” nor “component” carries a legal or industry-specific meaning, and that the clause uses the words “a core component” rather than “the core component”. He said the term was not to be conflated with expressions such as “the primary component”, “the most important component”, “core function” or “main role”. Using a car as an illustration, he said certain parts are core because they relate to safety or allow the engine to run, while items such as shiny hubcaps or air conditioning go to style or comfort.
“The focus is, does the ‘whole’ of ‘something’ need or require the component to function on an on-going basis and/or make it finished or complete? If it does, it is a core component, no matter how minor it might be, or how irregularly it might be required.” Deputy President Boyce
He also held that the dispute could not be resolved by reference to labels in a job description alone, and that the substance of the work actually performed had to be considered. The role description for a rail safety coach identifies conducting relevant competence assurance activities within the primary purpose of the role, lists coordinating post-incident remedial training as a key accountability, and sets a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment as an essential requirement.
The coach who gave evidence for the union said that coordinating post-incident remedial training involved him making an assessment of a protection officer’s competence by reference to network rules and procedures, using the employer’s RSC interaction application, and that he developed the criteria and assessed against them. On that evidence the Deputy President found the task was “a structured, formal evaluation against defined criteria” associated with assessing competence, and that without it, relevant post-incident remedial training could not occur. An acting senior manager for Sydney Trains gave evidence that recertification and post-incident remedial training and assessment are the top priority of the role. Both witnesses were described in the decision as “straight forward, knowledgeable, credible and cooperative”.
The union led no evidence on bargaining history
The RTBU put forward no evidence or other information about the history, context or common understanding of clause 86.7. It told the Commission this was a deliberate forensic choice, on the basis that the words of the clause were clear and unambiguous. The Deputy President said context and history remain relevant to interpretation even where the words are clear, and noted that the modifications producing the clause in its current form had been advanced by the RTBU itself during bargaining. “I proceed on the basis that evidence concerning bargaining history would not have assisted the RTBU’s case.”
The finding means the exclusion applies to any training or assessment work a coach is asked to perform by the employer, subject to the relevant limitations in the agreement and the role description. Evidence from an employee relations manager for Sydney Trains was that the allowance is paid to certain other employees, including a signal and area controller who holds a Certificate IV and is directed to carry out training or assessment.
Source: [2026] FWC 3486
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.