University successfully appeals internal preferential recruitment order

The full bench of the Fair Work Commission has granted the University of Melbourne permission to appeal an earlier decision that ordered the institution to prioritise internal staff in recruitment for new positions.

In its 8 October 2026 decision, the full bench granted appeal and simultaneously varied the initial decision on the third ground of appeal – which disputed the requirement that the university complete an initial, separate selection process for all casual and fixed-term employees.

The full bench clarified that the university is not legally required to complete a full, standalone internal recruitment process or make a decision before advertising externally if they assess all internal applications against the selection criteria.

In its appeal against the initial decision, the university argued that commissioner Ben Redford “erred in his application of the principles relevant to the construction of enterprise agreements, including by finding that there was a ‘common understanding’ between the parties about the purpose of the Recruitment clause”.

The dispute concerned clause 1.15.9 of the University of Melbourne enterprise agreement (Internal Hiring and Priority Rights) with the union. According to the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), the clause required the university to follow a full recruitment process for internal candidates for vacant continuing positions before considering external recruitment.

The clause in question said: “Employees engaged in Casual or Fixed-Term employment will be provided prior opportunity to apply and be considered for vacant continuing positions (where the Employee has the skills, experience, qualifications and expertise commensurate with the selection criteria).”

In the original dispute, the university contended that the clause did not create an “absolute obligation” to complete a standalone internal recruitment process, noting that the requirement for applicants to be considered did not necessitate a separate, prior internal recruitment round.

In this way, it was argued that internal candidates had to be identified and evaluated as part of one simultaneous process.

Further, management argued that the clause was purposed for priority consideration, not preferential recruitment.

Given the acceptance of ground three of the university’s appeal, the full bench clarified it was “not strictly necessary” to deal with grounds one and two.

In clarifying that the university does not need to conclude all internal recruitment processes for vacant continuing positions before advertising externally, but complete consideration of internal candidates with regard to the skills, experience, qualifications and expertise “commensurate with the selection criteria” for a relevant position, the full bench ordered that the university meet its obligations to casual and fixed-term employees by the following terms.

The university must advertise vacant continuing positions internally for a period that provides an opportunity for application, undertake an assessment of all internal candidates within an internal recruitment process, inform internal candidates of the outcome of their application before external recruitment commences, identify service-qualified internal candidates, and provide “all reasonable endeavours” to select one.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.