Paid Parental Leave Clarified: Primary Carer Does Not Mean Sole Carer

A recent Full Bench decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has clarified a critical aspect of Paid Parental Leave (PPL), confirming that a primary carer need not be the sole carer to qualify for PPL. The case, involving Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd and a bus driver represented by the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, has provided significant clarity on what constitutes a primary carer.

In July last year, Deputy President Val Gostencnik initially ordered Metro Tasmania to provide back pay for eight weeks of PPL to a bus driver who became the primary carer of his newborn son after his wife underwent an emergency caesarean section. Metro Tasmania challenged this decision, arguing the Deputy President had erred by not sufficiently considering that the bus driver’s wife was also receiving PPL.

Paid Parental Leave Clarified: Primary Carer Does Not Mean Sole Carer

The Full Bench, comprising Vice President Ingrid Asbury and Deputy Presidents Bryce Cross and Michael Easton, rejected Metro Tasmania's appeal and made clear that the term 'primary' means 'principal' or 'main,' not 'only.' They emphasised that being the primary carer does not cease merely because assistance is provided by a spouse or partner.

"In caring for a baby, being a primary carer does not require that person to be the only carer," the bench explained. "The primary carer is principally responsible for the day-to-day care or has overall responsibility for the child’s care."

The Bench further outlined that unforeseen circumstances, such as emergency medical procedures, do not negate a parent's claim to PPL. They strongly dismissed Metro Tasmania’s argument that a parent could not be the primary carer if another parent and the child were in the hospital, describing such a notion as "absurd."

"There is nothing unusual about both parents staying at the hospital following the birth of a child," they noted. "Parents are expected to provide care to their child during a hospital stay, including tasks such as burping, bathing, changing nappies, and settling the baby."

Crucially, the bench highlighted that the ability of the bus driver’s wife to provide care was significantly impaired due to medical complications, further solidifying his position as the primary carer during that period.

This decision has substantial implications for workplace parental leave policies, underscoring the importance of considering the actual caregiving arrangements rather than merely formal declarations or initial parental leave plans.

In affirming Deputy President Gostencnik’s decision, the Full Bench has reinforced a more compassionate and practical approach to parental leave. This case sets an important precedent ensuring workers are not disadvantaged when unexpected circumstances alter caregiving responsibilities. It emphasises the genuine needs of families, providing critical protection for workers during some of their most vulnerable times.

The ruling has been welcomed as a significant step towards a fairer and more realistic interpretation of primary caregiving roles, ensuring workers can support their families without undue hardship.

Case Reference: Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union [2025] FWCFB 124 (24 June 2025).