What happened

This short statement records an administrative correction to the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 issued by the Fair Work Commission (President Ross) as part of the 4 yearly review process. The Commission identified that, in the final determination of 1 October 2019 (PR712899), several provisions of the Award (specifically clauses 12.6, 12.9, 26.2(e)(ii) and 27.1(d)) contained incorrect cross references to clause 12.4. Those cross references were intended to point to clause 12.5. The Commission therefore issued a correction determination (referenced in the statement and footnoted as PR717503) to replace the incorrect references to clause 12.4 with references to clause 12.5 ([1]–[2]).

Paragraph [2] of the statement sets out the substantive distinction relied upon: clause 12.5 permits an employer and employee to agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 12.2 either on an ongoing basis or for a specified time period; clause 12.4, by contrast, concerns overtime payments where an employer does not keep a record of an agreed variation under clause 12.3. Paragraph [3] explains how the error arose: the draft determination following the 4 July 2019 decision ([2019] FWCFB 4679) referred correctly to clause 12.5, but when clause 12 was amended in the final determination the cross references were not updated and the incorrect references to clause 12.4 remained ([3]).

The practical outcome recorded is procedural: the Award is varied by correction to fix those cross references so the instrument accurately reflects the intended operative clause (see the disposition, and [1]–[3]).

Why the court decided this way

The statement does not record an adversarial contest or a point of legal principle in dispute. It records an internal correction process. The reasoning is straightforward and textual:

• The Commission examined the Award text as varied on 1 October 2019 and identified that clauses were pointing to clause 12.4;
• It compared the text with the intended operation of the clauses and with the draft determination; it found the draft had the correct references to clause 12.5 but the final text had not been updated after amendments to clause 12 ([3]);
• On that basis the Commission concluded that the final determination contained drafting/cross-referencing errors which could be corrected by a correction determination, and it replaced the incorrect references with references to clause 12.5 ([1]–[3]).

The decision is driven by plain textual consistency and by the administrative power and process of the Commission to correct drafting errors identified during the 4 yearly review. The statement specifies the particular provisions affected and explains the substantive difference between clause 12.4 and clause 12.5 so that the correction aligns the Award text with its intended operation ([2]).

Before and after state of the law

Before the correction determination (the state of the Award as published following the 1 October 2019 determination, PR712899), clauses 12.6, 12.9, 26.2(e)(ii) and 27.1(d) cross-referred to clause 12.4. Because clause 12.4 deals with overtime payments where an employer does not keep a record of an agreed variation under clause 12.3, reads of those cross-references could have led to an incorrect interpretation of those clauses the Commission intended to connect to the agreement-based variation regime in clause 12.5.

After the correction determination (PR717503), those cross-references were replaced to correctly point to clause 12.5, the clause providing that an employer or employee may agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed under clause 12.2 on an ongoing basis or for a specified time period. The correction therefore aligns the text of the Award with its intended meaning and prevents misapplication of overtime rules in contexts meant to be governed by agreed variations ([2]).

The statement does not purport to change any substantive rights or obligations beyond correcting drafting errors. It records a textual/administrative variation to ensure operational clarity.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Quoted passage ([1]): "A correction determination[1] has been issued to address a number of cross-referencing issues in the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 arising from the determination issued on 1 October 2019 (PR712899)."

Plain-English translation: The Commission has formally issued a correction to fix mistakes in the Award that came into the final October 2019 version.

Quoted passage ([2]): "The cross references to clause 12.4 in clauses 12.6, 12.9, 26.2(e)(ii) and 27.1(d) will be replaced with cross references to clause 12.5. Clause 12.5 provides that an employer or employee may agree to vary the regular pattern of work agreed to under clause 12.2 on an ongoing basis or a specified time period, whereas clause 12.4 concerns overtime payments where an employer does not keep a record of an agreed variation under clause 12.3."

Plain-English translation: Four clauses in the Award mistakenly pointed to clause 12.4 when they should have pointed to clause 12.5. Clause 12.5 is about mutually agreed changes to regular work patterns; clause 12.4 is about how overtime is treated if there's no record of an agreed variation. So the Commission corrected the pointers so the right rule applies.

Quoted passage ([3]): "The equivalent cross references in the draft determination published as a result of the decision issued on 4 July 2019 ([2019] FWCFB 4679) referred to the correct clause; however, the cross references were not updated when clause 12 was amended in the final determination."

Plain-English translation: The error was introduced after the draft stage. The draft pointed to the right clause, but when clause 12 was amended in the final version the cross references were not updated, creating the mistake that the Commission corrected.

Each passage is direct and administrative: the Commission identifies the error, explains the correct text and the origin of the mistake, and records the corrective action.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This statement operates as an internal administrative correction rather than a precedent establishing new legal tests. However, the factual pattern that produced the correction is instructive for future instrument drafting and review:

• A draft determination correctly references the intended clause;
• During finalisation the structure or numbering of clauses is amended (here, clause 12 was amended);
• The drafting team fails to update cross references in other provisions to reflect the clause-numbering or structural amendments;
• The final instrument, as published, therefore contains cross-referencing errors that misstate which operative clause governs a particular matter.

Where those conditions arise, the Commission (or an administering body) may issue a correction determination to fix the drafting errors and align the instrument text with the intended substantive rules. The statement illustrates the mechanics of identifying the error (comparison with the draft and the substance of clauses) and correcting it.

How later courts have treated it

The present statement does not discuss any judicial or later administrative consideration of this correction determination. It is a standalone administrative correction recorded by the President of the Fair Work Commission. The statement does not cite subsequent cases or say how later courts or tribunals have treated this correction. Therefore, the document contains no material on later judicial treatment to summarise.

Still-open questions

The statement is short and administrative, so it leaves several matters unaddressed that a practitioner might note, though the Commission did not need to resolve them in this statement:

• The statement does not expressly identify whether the correction determination has retrospective effect, or the temporal operation of the correction relative to actions taken under the misreferenced clauses in the period between the final determination and the correction. The text records the correction only.
• The statement does not set out an express mechanism for affected parties to rely on the corrected text for disputes that arose while the incorrect text was published.
• The statement does not identify whether any parties objected to the correction, or whether the correction was uncontroversial and administrative in nature.
• The statement does not restate the Commission's specific legal power or statutory provision authorising the particular correction (although the header references the 4 yearly review under s.156 of the Fair Work Act 2009); it does not elaborate the procedural basis beyond recording the correction.

A practitioner reviewing this statement will see it as an administrative record; if questions arise about effect or dispute resolution during the interim period between error and correction, further inquiry of the Commission's correction determination document (PR717503) or procedural rules would be necessary.

---

This analysis is based only on the Fair Work Commission statement cited: 4 yearly review of modern awards - Fast Food Industry Award 2010 [2020] FWC 1393 (17 March 2020). It explains what the statement records, quotes the key paragraphs and provides a source-grounded reading. This is general legal information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you act on, rely on, or use any part of this summary or any draft, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.