Fair Work Commission dismisses Erin Wallace’s roster-change and wage claim

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Erin Wallace’s claim against Harbour Lane Café Pty Ltd for compensation, an injunction and a finding that she was improperly removed from work after raising a wage concern. Wallace sought payment for a disputed Saturday shift and relief over the subsequent removal of shifts from the roster.

The Commission found that Wallace had made her wage complaint sufficiently specific by identifying $125.70, calculated as three hours at $41.90 an hour. However, it held that the available material did not establish that the Saturday shift was guaranteed, that the amount was owed, or that the roster change was caused by her wage inquiry.

No compensation or injunction was ordered. The café was recorded as the prevailing side.

• Wallace’s claim was dismissed.
• No compensation was awarded.
• No injunction was ordered.

The Commission treated the published roster for the following fortnight as the central exhibit. It showed Wallace listed for Saturday and Sunday shifts which were later crossed out and marked “cover arranged”. The Commission found that the document proved that upcoming shifts had been shown and later changed, but did not itself establish the reason for the change.

While the timing of the roster alteration after the wage message created suspicion, the Commission held that timing alone did not prove retaliation. The café’s explanation that the changes reflected casual scheduling and coverage needs was consistent with the roster notation, and no separate decision record, policy document or witness account was produced to show that the wage complaint caused the change.

The Commission said Wallace bore the burden of proving facts supporting relief. It found the evidence did not show that the shift had been promised in a way that made its removal unlawful, nor did it establish entitlement to broader economic loss, future loss or an injunction.

The formal judgment stated: “The plaintiff proved a specific claimed amount, but did not prove the key causal link needed for retaliation or improper removal from work.”

“The roster screenshot helps Erin in one respect: it shows she was expected to work and that the roster changed after her wage complaint. But suspicion is not proof.”

Wallace submitted that she had worked regular hours at the café and had lost her usual shifts after asking about an unpaid Saturday shift. Her submissions ultimately identified the claimed unpaid amount as $125.70 for three hours at $41.90 per hour. She also contended that the café should have given notice of roster changes and sought economic loss and other relief.

Her position shifted during the hearing. An earlier submission referred to withdrawing without prejudice and contacting the Fair Work Ombudsman, while later submissions sought findings about notice, termination, breach of contract and an injunction.

The café denied retaliating against Wallace. It submitted that she was a casual worker and that shifts could change according to staffing and availability. Relying on the roster screenshot as its only exhibit, it argued that the notation “cover arranged” reflected an ordinary staffing adjustment rather than punishment for a wage complaint.

The café further submitted that Wallace’s expectation of work did not prove that the shifts were guaranteed or that the roster change was connected to her wage inquiry.

Wallace said she worked at Harbour Lane Café for about eight weeks, averaging roughly 10 hours a week. She maintained that one Saturday shift was not paid into her bank account and that, after she asked about wages, her usual shifts stopped.

The record also referred to a roster showing Wallace initially listed for the next Saturday and Sunday before both entries were crossed out. The café maintained that the changes were made for coverage reasons.

The outcome is confined to the evidence placed before the Commission in this proceeding. The Commission did not find that the disputed shift was guaranteed or unpaid, and it made no finding of retaliatory treatment.