The Federal Court of Australia has made a ruling on appropriate allowances to be paid to training staff with Triple Zero Victoria (formerly the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority or ETSA).  In Triple Zero Victoria v Morton-Pederson [2025] FCA 419 the Court had to consider whether staff appointed as a workplace trainer and paid a ‘Workplace Training increment as part of their annual salary’ were also ‘entitled to the Mentor Allowance when they perform mentoring duties as part of their Workplace Training role’ ([2]).  In Morton-Pederson & Ors v Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority [2023] VMC 7the Magistrates court heard:

… three concurrent claims that were made by the present respondents as employees of the appellant for the payment of the Mentor Allowance under 2015 Agreement and the 2019 Agreement. At the times relevant to the claims, all three employees were appointed as Workplace Trainers. They contended in the Magistrates’ Court that they should have been paid the Mentor Allowance, in addition to the Workplace Training increment paid as part of their annual salary, at the times that they performed mentoring duties. The appellant argued that the Workplace Training increment paid as part of their annual salary is intended to, and has always, compensated them for all training duties, including mentoring.

The magistrate had determined that the staff were entitled to the Allowance. Triple Zero Victoria appealed to the Federal Court.  McEvoy J found that the Magistrate had misapplied the law and staff paid the workplace training increment were not also entitled to the mentoring allowance. At [48] His Honour said:

I accept that the [Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2015 and the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Operational Employees Enterprise Agreement 2019]…. proceed on the basis that at a particular point in time it is possible to be a Mentor or a Workplace Trainer, but not both. I accept also that this conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the clauses establish an allowance for “their mentoring duties” rather than an allowance simply for “mentoring duties”. I accept that the phrase “their mentoring duties” is significant because it indicates that the “mentoring duties” that attract the allowance are duties which sit outside the employee’s usual duties. This is not so for a Workplace Trainer.

Conclusion

A mentor is defined (at [27]) as:

… an Employee who is responsible for and acts as a guide and adviser to another Employee during their training / development phase while monitoring their performance and assessing their individual learning needs and providing constructive feedback. “Mentor” also means an Employee who provides on-shift familiarisation to Employees who are complying with a prerequisite training course requirement or whilst the Employees are in training.

Mentoring is part of the duties of an appointed workplace trainer for which they receive the Workplace Training increment.  Staff who are not trainers but who take on a mentoring role are entitled to the mentoring allowance.  One cannot be both a trainer, and a mentor, at the same time.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.