The decision of the Fair Work Commission in Mohan Komati v Golden Glow Corporation (NT) Pty Ltd T/A Golden Glow Nursing [2026] FWC 1899 turned on the interpretation of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award 2010.  It will have little application beyond it’s specific facts in particular as the Award has been rewritten to remove many of the issues that had to be interpreted in this case (see [62]). Notwithstanding the case’s limited application, what the Commission said about the entitlement to a first aid allowance may be of interest to readers of this blog.

The award said, at clause 20.6 (set out at [9]):

(a) First aid allowance—full-time employees

A weekly first aid allowance of 1.67% of the standard rate per week will be paid to a full-time employee where:

(i) an employee is required by the employer to hold a current first aid certificate; and

(ii) an employee, other than a home care employee, is required by their employer to perform first aid at their workplace; or 

(iii) a home care employee is required by the employer to be, in a given week, responsible for the provision of first aid to employees employed by the employer.

The applicant, Mr Komati had worked for the respondent since 22 July 2019 and had some 10 employment contracts in that time ([12]). He argued (at [23]) that:

… his role with the Respondent requires him to hold a First Aid Certificate. The Applicant submitted that his employment requires him at times to be working without a Registered Nurse or other relevantly qualified person present, which as a result, requires him to be able to perform first aid not only on other employees in his workplace but to those he is employed to care for.

It was noted that his initial job description of 9 January 2018 said that a first aid certificate was required for the job.  Since May 2024 that requirement had been downgraded to a CPR certificate. The applicant argued that the change was made when he first inquired about being paid a first aid allowance ([24]).

The respondent’s arguments are summarised at [54]-[55]:

In relation to the Applicant’s claim that he is entitled to the First Aid Allowance, the Respondent acknowledged that the Applicant was required to hold a first aid certificate on commencement of his role. However, the Respondent submitted that a First Aid Allowance is not payable just because an employee is required to hold a first aid certificate. The Respondent referred to clause 20.6 of the Award, and submitted that to be eligible for the First Aid Allowance, an employee must also be responsible for the provision of first aid to employees employed by the employer. The Respondent submitted that it does not task the Applicant with providing first aid to other employees. The Respondent submitted that it has “immediately available on-call and active nursing staff” who are responsible for both client and staff first aid, and who attend and provide first aid assistance if required.

The Respondent submitted that, if the intention of the Award was to require first aid allowances to be paid to any employee who is required to hold a current First Aid Certificate, then clause 20.6(a)(iii) would have no work to do.

With respect to first aid Commissioner Riordan said (at [65]-[67]):

It is not in dispute that it was a condition of the Applicant’s employment that he possess a current First Aid Certificate. There would be absolutely no need to hold this Certificate if the Respondent did not require to utilise the skills and competencies associated with that Certificate. There would also be no need to have a locked first aid kit on site if there was no requirement to provide first aid to the residents, visitors or colleagues. Ms Kovac testified that:-

“While Golden Glow requires its Home Care Employees to hold current first aid certificates on commencement of their employment and to assist in discharging Golden Glow’s duty of care to the residents by providing basic first aid if required, Golden Glow does not require or expect them to provide first aid to other employees. This is consistent with standard practice within the home care industry.”

I note that the Award does not provide a differential between ‘basic first aid’ and ‘first aid’.  I have taken this into account.

The provision of first aid is a situation where delay increases risk. This is obviously acknowledged by the Respondent by requiring the Applicant to hold a current First Aid Certificate at the time of his employment. This need is obviously amplified when dealing with clients with medical and physical challenges. To suggest that the Applicant was required to hold the first aid qualification, but not use these competencies, defies logic. To suggest that an off-site nurse can replicate the first aid care and assistance provided by the Applicant, whilst he is on site and next to the impacted individual, makes no sense. For example, if a client cuts their hand whilst chopping food in the kitchen, I would expect the Applicant to utilise his skills to clean the wound and stop the bleeding. In reality, if the Applicant was not required to provide any first aid, then there was no requirement for him to have his First Aid Certificate, nor is there a need for a first aid kit. I have taken this into account.

Further, I do not accept that the Respondent can overcome its obligations to pay the First Aid Allowance simply because Darwin Hospital is just down the road or because the Respondent has a 24-hour telephone nursing service. Even if the Applicant is provided with verbal instructions over a phone, the Applicant would still be required to utilise his first aid competencies if he is instructed to perform CPR by either the Respondent’s nurse or the phone operator of the ambulance service upon a client, colleague or visitor. I have taken this into account.

The Commission found that he was ‘required by the employer to hold a current first aid certificate’ and ‘is required by their employer to perform first aid at their workplace’ and therefore was entitled to the first aid allowance.

Conclusion

As I say the case does turn on its own facts and the peculiarities of the Award in question.  The observation however that if an employer requires an employee to have a first aid certificate then the only explanation for that requirement is that they will be expected to perform first aid may be of interest and may cause some readers of this blog to reflect on whether they, too, should be receiving a first aid allowance. 

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.