Linq HR - Blogs (Information) #employee relationsLinq HR - Blogs (Information) #employee relationshttps://www.linqhr.com/blogs/tag/employee-relationsSat, 13 Jun 2026 17:31:45 +1000http://zoho.com/sites/<![CDATA[Why Recording Minutes Matters in Enterprise Negotiations]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/why-recording-minutes-matters-in-enterprise-negotiationsClear and accurate minutes are one of the most effective tools for achieving a smooth and compliant enterprise bargaining process.]]>

Enterprise agreement negotiations are complex. With multiple stakeholders and legal obligations, keeping accurate minutes is not just good practice, it is essential.

Key benefits of issuing minutes:
  • Transparency: Records ensure all parties share a clear understanding of discussions and commitments (Fair Work Commission, 2022).
  • Compliance: Minutes help demonstrate “genuine agreement” under the Fair Work Act 2009, which is vital when seeking Fair Work Commission approval (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2024).
  • Progress tracking: They provide a timeline of negotiations, highlight outstanding issues, and maintain accountability.
  • Risk reduction: Minutes minimise misunderstandings and help resolve disputes quickly (Australian Government, 2023).
  • Governance: Boards and executives expect evidence of due diligence. Issued minutes show the process was managed professionally and responsibly (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2024).

Minutes should be issued soon after each negotiation meeting and ask for feedback from all in attendance on clarifications and corrections.

Accurate minutes are more than a record, they are protection, potential evidence, and a vital governance tool in achieving a successful enterprise agreement.

If you need assistance planning and negotiating an Enterprise Agreement Linq HR has the experience and expertise to assist. Contact us in Melbourne at 1300234566.

References
Australian Government. (2023) Guide to managing workplace disputes. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/
Australian Institute of Company Directors. (2024) Good governance guide: recording and keeping minutes. Sydney: AICD. Available at: https://www.aicd.com.au/
Fair Work Commission. (2022) Enterprise agreements benchbook. Melbourne: Fair Work Commission. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/
Fair Work Ombudsman. (2024) Enterprise bargaining. Canberra: Fair Work Ombudsman. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/
]]>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:23:17 +1000<![CDATA[Negotiate an Enterprise Agreement Early for Greater Business Certainty]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/negotiate-an-enterprise-agreement-early-for-greater-business-certaintyLearn why negotiating an enterprise agreement before expiry reduces risks, locks in wage certainty, and ensures compliance for Australian businesses.]]>

In today’s complex industrial relations environment, greater business certainty is one of the most valuable commodities a business can secure. 

Enterprise Agreements (EAs) provide tailored employment terms that override modern awards once approved by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). While every agreement includes a nominal expiry date, it does not cease to operate at that point, it continues until replaced or terminated (Fair Work Commission, 2024). Waiting until expiry to negotiate a replacement, however, can create significant risks. By contrast, early negotiation provides clarity, stability and confidence for both employers and employees.

Reducing the Risk of Disruption
After an EA passes its nominal expiry date, employees and unions gain the right to take protected industrial action, such as strikes, to push their bargaining claims (Solo, 2025). This introduces uncertainty, operational disruption and reputational risks for employers. Early negotiation keeps the agreement “in term” and removes the immediate threat of industrial action. It also helps employers avoid being drawn into multi-employer bargaining processes, which have been expanded under the Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms (King & Wood Mallesons, 2023).

Certainty on Wages and Conditions
Labour costs represent a major expense for most organisations. An EA negotiated early can lock in future wage increases and conditions for the life of the agreement, providing businesses with a clear picture of their cost base. This predictability supports long term planning, budgeting and investment decisions. For employees, certainty around entitlements builds confidence and engagement. As Peninsula (2025) observes, stability on pay and conditions fosters stronger workplace culture and morale.

Ensuring Compliance and Flexibility
Delaying renegotiation until after expiry can lead to compliance issues. If award rates rise above the expired agreement’s wage rates, employers may be forced to make ad-hoc adjustments to remain compliant with minimum standards (Solo, 2025). Early negotiation avoids this scenario, ensuring the agreement reflects current legal obligations and best practice. It also allows employers to modernise clauses, streamline rostering and introduce provisions such as flexible work arrangements or the right to disconnect, important updates in today’s changing industrial landscape (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2025).

Strengthening Relationships
Commencing bargaining before expiry signals to employees and unions that management is proactive and committed to fair outcomes. This can strengthen trust and reduce adversarial behaviour at the table. Meaningful consultation also gives employees a greater sense of involvement and ownership, which can translate into higher productivity and retention (Sprintlaw, 2025a). Starting negotiations early also prevents negotiations being rushed, and can give time to modernising the agreement particularly where previous clause need to be rewritten to be upgraded.

The Role of Employee Relations Specialists
Negotiating an EA is complex. It involves legal compliance, operational and strategic thinking and an understanding of day to day workplace realities. An experienced employee relations specialist with direct industry experience can bridge these gaps. They bring practical insights into operations, model wage impacts, manage union engagement and ensure compliance with the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT). Their guidance allows businesses to secure certainty without overlooking employee needs.

Business certainty cannot be overstated in a competitive economy. Negotiating a replacement enterprise agreement before expiry allows employers to avoid disruption, maintain compliance, and lock in predictable wage outcomes. It also fosters stronger engagement and culture. By seeking advice early and involving experienced employee relations specialists, businesses can secure an agreement that balances operational requirements with employee wellbeing, providing certainty in an uncertain world.

If you need assistance planning and negotiating an Enterprise Agreement Linq HR has the experience and expertise to assist. Contact us in Melbourne at 1300234566.

References
Fair Work Commission (2024) Nominal expiry date (bench book). Canberra: FWC.
Fair Work Ombudsman (2025) Enterprise bargaining and enterprise agreement changes. Canberra: FWO.
King & Wood Mallesons (2023) Navigating Australia’s new enterprise bargaining framework – tips for employers. Sydney: KWM.
Peninsula Group (2025) Why do you need an enterprise agreement?. Sydney: Peninsula AU.
Solo, A. (2025) What happens when an enterprise agreement expires in Australia?. Sydney: Sprintlaw.
Sprintlaw (2025a) Enterprise agreements explained: guide for Australian employers. Sydney: Sprintlaw.
]]>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:58:19 +1000<![CDATA[Time to Check your Labour Hire Model. Lessons from BHP’s Fair Work Commission Defeat]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/your-labour-hire-model-is-under-scrutiny-lessons-from-bhp-s-fair-work-commission-defeatEmployers using labour hire arrangements, particularly in sectors such as mining, manufacturing, logistics, and construction, should urgently review their compliance with the Fair Work Act’s amended labour hire provisions ahead of increased enforcement.]]>
In a pivotal decision that is expected to have wide ranging impacts across the mining and labour hire sectors, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has upheld an application by the Mining and Energy Union (MEU) concerning the use of labour hire workers at BHP’s Goonyella Riverside, Peak Downs and Saraji mines located in Central Queensland.

The ruling clarifies the intent and strength of the “Same Job, Same Pay” provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009, as amended by the Closing Loopholes No. 2 Act 2024.

Case Overview
The MEU submitted a significant application on behalf of over 1,600 labour hire workers across several of BHP’s Queensland coal sites, including Goonyella Riverside, Peak Downs, and Saraji. These workers, employed by BHP’s in-house labour hire subsidiary Operations Services (OS), as well as external agencies such as WorkPac and Chandler Macleod, were found to be earning between $10,000 and $49,000 less per annum than directly employed mineworkers performing equivalent roles (ABC News, 2025).

BHP had argued that OS was providing a separate “service” and that the arrangement did not fall under the labour hire provisions outlined in the new laws. The company claimed these workers were engaged on different performance frameworks and rosters that distinguished them from enterprise agreement covered employees (The Australian, 2025).

FWC’s Decision and Its Significance
The Commission rejected BHP’s argument, ruling that the OS arrangement was, in substance, a labour hire model. The FWC stated that OS workers were doing “the same, or substantially the same, work” as directly employed mineworkers and were therefore entitled to the same full rate of pay (Fair Work Commission, 2025). This means BHP must now ensure that all labour hire workers across these sites receive parity with employees covered under the applicable enterprise agreements.

The decision will see approximately 2,200 labour hire workers receive pay rises of up to $30,000 per year, with BHP facing a total cost impact of around $66 million (Australian Financial Review, 2025). This outcome sends a clear message to employers that internal subsidiaries or alternate structures cannot be used to circumvent enterprise bargaining outcomes.

Implications for Employers
This case is a landmark test of the new Same Job, Same Pay provisions and demonstrates that:
  • Host employers cannot avoid pay parity by creating in-house labour hire companies or using third-party agencies where workers perform the same work as their direct employees.
  • Labour hire providers and host businesses must closely assess job equivalence and ensure workers are paid in line with enterprise agreement conditions.
  • Fair Work Commission orders can be sought by unions, employees or the Fair Work Ombudsman, making non-compliance highly visible and enforceable.

This Goonyella Riverside ruling highlights the Fair Work Commission's intent to strictly apply equal pay for equal work principles, reinforcing protections for labour hire workers and promoting wage fairness in the mining sector and beyond.

Employers using labour hire arrangements, particularly in sectors such as mining, manufacturing, logistics, and construction, should urgently review their compliance with the Fair Work Act’s amended labour hire provisions ahead of increased enforcement.

For further information or assistance in aligning your labour hire practices with current legislation, please contact Linq HR.

      🌐 Visit: www.linqhr.com

📞 Call: 1300234566

References 
ABC News (2025) Fair Work Commission case accusing BHP of underpaying labour hire workers.  Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-20/qld-meu-bhp-same-work-same-pay-fair-work/104837684
Australian Financial Review (2025) BHP loses $66m fight over labour hire laws in landmark ruling. Available at: https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/bhp-loses-66m-fight-over-labour-hire-laws-in-landmark-ruling-20250704-p5mclj 
Fair Work Commission (2025) Decision: Mining and Energy Union v BHP – Goonyella Riverside Mine (Labour Hire Provisions).Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decision-pdf/2025fwcdecision-bhp-goonyella-samejob-samepay.pdf
The Australian (2025) Unions win landmark test case against BHP for ‘same job, same pay’. Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/unions-win-landmark-test-case-against-bhp-for-same-job-same-pay/news-story/87bccf967c7c9275296fb64444063dc7 
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 11:24:48 +1000<![CDATA[Supported Bargaining: What Employers Should Be Doing Now]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/supported-bargaining-what-employers-should-be-doing-nowRecent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions have approved several applications from unions to initiate Supported Bargaining across groups of employers]]>
Recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions have approved several applications from unions to initiate Supported Bargaining across groups of employers in industries such as early childhood education, fast food and disability services. These decisions mark a significant shift in collective bargaining practice in Australia, with implications that now extend beyond those sectors.

What is Supported Bargaining?
Supported Bargaining is a stream under the Fair Work Act that allows multiple employers, typically in the same industry or sector, to bargain collectively with employees and their representatives (usually unions), particularly where enterprise bargaining has historically been difficult or ineffective. It was introduced as part of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act 2022 reforms (Fair Work Legislation Amendment Act 2022).

Basically the FWC may approve a union’s application if:
  • Employers have similar interests (e.g., small to medium sized businesses in the same sector);
  • Bargaining is otherwise unlikely to occur; and
  • It is in the public interest for bargaining to occur in this way.

Recent Developments
During 2024 and 2025, the FWC has increasingly approved supported bargaining applications across:
  • Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) providers;
  • Fast Food outlets (McDonalds South Australia); and
  • Disability services providers.

This signals growing momentum for industry wide bargaining in sectors marked by fragmented employment arrangements, tight margins, and award reliance.

What Should Employers Be Doing Now?

1. Assess Whether You May Be Targeted or Affected
  • Employers in similar industries or sharing key workforce characteristics (e.g., low union density, low bargaining history) may be approached by unions or named in applications with the Fair Work Commission.
  • Review your current agreements, award coverage, types of work being performed, and any common interests with other employers to assess risk exposure.

2. Consider Specialist Employee Relations and Legal Advice Early
  • Engaging Employee Relations or legal advisors to assess your bargaining strategy or whether you should apply to opt-out is critical. Opting out could include having an existing Enterprise Agreement in place or not being reasonably comparable to the other employers named in a group of employers submitted to the FWC.
  • Early planning can reduce compliance risks and allow for better alignment with operational priorities.

3. Evaluate Workforce Relations and Union Engagement
  • An active and transparent approach to workforce consultation is now more important than ever.
  • Maintain open communication with employees and be proactive in addressing workplace concerns
  • Even where union presence is minimal, proactive communication and understanding employee concerns can mitigate risk and support productive negotiations.

4. Stay Informed on Legislative and Case Law Updates
  • Supported Bargaining is still developing in practice. Monitor key decisions and compliance obligations as the case law matures. For example, the FWC's recent approval in United Workers’ Union – Aged Care Bargaining Group (2024) provides precedent on public interest and operational similarity criteria.

5. Continue Genuine Enterprise Bargaining
  • A proactive strategy to reduce the risk of being included in a Supported Bargaining Authorisation is to commence or continue genuine enterprise bargaining with your own employees and their representatives. 
  • The Fair Work Commission may refuse to include or retain an employer in Supported Bargaining if it can be shown that effective bargaining is already taking place at the enterprise level under section 243 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Important to note that the Fair Work Commission can refuse to approve an agreement if it believes the employer is trying to circumvent supported bargaining.

If unable to exit the Supported Bargaining process then you should ;
  • Plan to actively participate in bargaining to help shape terms. 
  • Collaborate with other employers or industry associations to strengthen bargaining power;
  • Consider the use of experienced industrial relations consultants or legal representatives.

The expansion of Supported Bargaining has created a new dynamic in Australia’s industrial landscape. While the initial cases have largely focused on care based industries, the mechanism is now available across all sectors where the statutory criteria are met. Employers should act now to review their exposure, engage with stakeholders, and prepare for a potential shift from individual enterprise agreements to industry wide negotiations.

📩 Contact Linq HR today for permanent roles in Supply Chain, Manufacturing and Engineering.

      🌐 Visit: www.linqhr.com

📞 Call: 1300234566

References
Australian Government (2022) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. https://www.legislation.gov.au 
Fair Work Commission (2024) United Workers’ Union – Aged Care Bargaining Group Decision. https://www.fwc.gov.au
Fair Work Commission (2025) Health Services Union & Australian Education Union - Disability Services Decision https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/b2023-1235/2025fwcfb131.pdf 




]]>Wed, 02 Jul 2025 12:40:03 +1000<![CDATA[Possibly the Most Important Step in a Fair Dismissal: The Right to Respond]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/the-most-important-step-in-a-fair-dismissal-the-right-to-respondIn Australian employment law, one of the most fundamental principles underpinning a fair dismissal process is the employee’s right to respond to allegations before any final decision to terminate their employment is made.]]>
In Australian employment law, one of the most fundamental principles underpinning a fair dismissal process is the employee’s right to respond to allegations before any final decision to terminate their employment is made. 

This principle is not only best practice for all supervisors and managers, it is enshrined in legislation. Section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 outlines the criteria for considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and central to this assessment is whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to their capacity or conduct that may justify dismissal (Fair Work Act 2009, s.387(c)).


Why the Right to Respond Matters
Giving an employee the chance to respond reflects the basic tenets of procedural fairness, also alternatively known as natural justice. It acknowledges the right of individuals to be heard and ensures decisions are made based on all relevant facts rather than assumptions or incomplete information. In cases involving conduct or performance concerns, it is possible that the employer has misunderstood the situation, or that mitigating circumstances exist which should be taken into account before deciding to end employment.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has for a long time reinforced the importance of this step. In Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Noble Park Storage & Transport, the Full Bench stated, amongst other things, that procedural fairness requires that an employee be warned about unsatisfactory performance and given an opportunity to respond before dismissal (FWC, 2001).

Section 387 and Procedural Fairness
The Fair Work Act 2009 requires the FWC to consider several factors when determining whether a dismissal was fair, including:
- Whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal (s.387(a))
- Whether the employee was notified of that reason (s.387(b))
- Whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond (s.387(c))

Failure to provide an opportunity to respond may result in a dismissal being found unfair, even where a valid reason exists. The rationale is simple: if an employee is not allowed to tell their side of the story, the decision maker cannot be confident that the decision to dismiss is justified, appropriate, or proportionate.

A Practical and Ethical Imperative
From a practical management perspective, allowing the employee to respond may assist in resolving misunderstandings or lead to alternative outcomes such as training, redeployment, or performance improvement plans. Ethically, it demonstrates respect for the dignity of the individual and supports a culture of transparency and fairness in the workplace. Sometimes, even after a somewhat thorough investigation, new facts can emerge from the employee in question.

Even where the outcome may still be termination, the process followed can influence whether a dismissal is considered fair. There area a myriad number of cases where employees have clearly been terminated for valid reasons but have been reinstated or compensated due to simply not being asked to give their view before the termination decision was made and communicated.

Supervisors Fear of Hearing Something That Might Change the Outcome
In some cases, supervisors or managers hesitate to give an employee the opportunity to respond before termination out of fear that the employee might say something that complicates or challenges the decision. This fear, while understandable, is misplaced.

It is natural for an employee facing possible dismissal to present reasons why they believe termination is unwarranted. However, allowing the employee to respond does not mean the termination cannot still proceed. It simply means that all relevant information, especially any mitigating circumstance, has been fairly considered before the final decision is made.

The right to respond is far more than a procedural formality. It is a critical safeguard for both the employee and the employer. Respecting this right ensures the dismissal process is fair, legally sound, and defensible. It also serves as a final checkpoint to confirm that the decision to terminate is based on complete and accurate information.

📩 Contact Linq HR today to explore tailored support for your employee relations and workplace management.

      🌐 Visit: www.linqhr.com

📞 Call: 1300234566
References 
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.387
Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Noble Park Storage & Transport [2001] AIRC 377.
Fair Work Commission (2024) Unfair dismissal – criteria for harshness. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/benchbook/unfair-dismissals-benchbook
Get Started Now
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:33:59 +1000<![CDATA[Major Changes to Employee Relations Legislation in Australia (2022–2024): Impacts on Workforce and Productivity]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/major-changes-to-employee-relations-legislation-in-australia-2022–2024-impacts-on-workforce-and-prodOver the past three years, Australia has witnessed substantial reforms to employee relations legislation, reshaping the employer and employee dynamic.]]>

Over the past three years, Australia has witnessed substantial reforms to employee relations legislation, reshaping the employer and employee dynamic. 


While many changes focus on fairness and employee protections, several reforms offer some potential improvements through workforce stability, clarity, and modernised workplace practices, but none perhaps go directly towards assisting the core commercial requirements of business to make ongoing productivity improvements to compete globally and improve our overall longer term standard of living.


1. Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act 2022

The Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act introduced major reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009. These include enabling multi employer bargaining in low paid sectors, strengthening rights to flexible work, banning pay secrecy clauses, and placing a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment. By fostering inclusive workplaces and improving job security, these reforms aim to reduce turnover and increase employee engagement. (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2023a).


2. Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave

From February 2023 (for large employers) and August 2023 (for small businesses), employees gained access to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. By supporting employees during personal crises, this reform may reduce unplanned absenteeism and enhance employee well being. (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2023b).


3. Closing Loopholes Acts 2023 and 2024

These amendments tackle wage theft, regulate labour hire arrangements to ensure pay equity, and clarify the definition of casual employment. Notably, the introduction of a "same job, same pay" framework aims at providing clarity for employers and reduce legal ambiguity, which can otherwise result in workplace disputes and inefficiencies (Fair Work Commission, 2024a).


4. Right to Disconnect (2024)

From 2024, employees gained the right to refuse unreasonable after hours work communications. Though initially seen as a restriction, this change could perhaps support productivity by protecting employee rest time and reducing burnout—key factors in maintaining long term workforce performance (Fair Work Commission, 2024b).


Productivity Implications for Employers

While some changes present compliance costs, others may improve workforce stability, clarity in employment relationships, and employee satisfaction. These are essential components of a productive and resilient business model. For example, a well rested and engaged workforce may tend to report fewer errors and deliver more consistent performance outcomes. Whether all these reforms will result in any real future core productivity improvements then only time will tell by our standard of living improving correspondingly.


📩 Contact us today to explore tailored support for your employee relations and workplace management

                   🌐 Visit: www.linqhr.com

📞 Call: 1300234566


References


]]>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:18:41 +1000<![CDATA[How Australian Supply Chain and Manufacturing Are Evolving]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/how-australian-supply-chain-and-manufacturing-are-evolvingAustralia’s supply chain and manufacturing sectors are entering a new era, driven by global shifts and emerging strategic priorities. Recent research from the World Economic Forum and MHD Supply Chain highlights four key trends shaping this transformation.]]>

Australia’s supply chain and manufacturing sectors are entering a new era, driven by global shifts and emerging strategic priorities. Recent research from the World Economic Forum and MHD Supply Chain highlights four key trends shaping this transformation.

1. Regionalisation and Resilience

Global manufacturers are moving beyond cost as the sole driver of decision making. According to the World Economic Forum, over 90% of manufacturers are regionalising supply chains, with two thirds adopting a “power-of-two” sourcing strategy to strengthen resilience (World Economic Forum, 2024a). Australian businesses are following suit, diversifying suppliers and investing in regionally based capabilities to improve operational continuity.

 2. Infrastructure and Sustainable Development
Infrastructure plays a vital role in enabling modern manufacturing. The Beyond Cost report identifies infrastructure as one of seven critical readiness factors that influence global investment (World Economic Forum, 2024a). In Australia, we see this reflected in developments such as Stockland’s 46,000-square-metre warehouse expansion in Melbourne, which features energy efficient construction and smart logistics design (MHD Supply Chain, 2025a).

 3. Advanced Technology Integration
Digitisation, automation, and artificial intelligence are transforming supply chains worldwide. The World Economic Forum’s Global Lighthouse Network demonstrates that technology led innovation significantly improves productivity and sustainability (World Economic Forum, 2024c). Australian manufacturers are increasingly embracing these technologies to remain competitive and agile in a fast moving global environment.

4. ESG as a Strategic Priority
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors are no longer optional. Transparent governance, sustainability commitments, and ethical labour practices are becoming central to investment and procurement decisions (World Economic Forum, 2024a). Australian organisations are aligning strategies accordingly, recognising ESG as a key differentiator in global supply networks.

Australia’s supply chain and manufacturing industries are evolving through regionalisation, infrastructure modernisation, tech adoption, and ESG alignment—positioning the sector to thrive in a fluctuating global landscape and sustainability conscious future.

Ready to Strengthen Your Supply Chain?
At Linq HR, we partner with manufacturers, logistics providers, and supply chain leaders to build future ready workforces and operational strategies.

Whether you're reorganising in response to the fluctuating global landscape, navigating ESG compliance, or hiring skilled professionals, our HR and supply chain consulting services ensure you stay ahead.

📩 Contact us today to explore tailored support for your manufacturing or logistics business.

🌐 Visit: www.linqhr.com

📞 Call: 1300234566

References
MHD Supply Chain, 2025a. Stockland opens new warehouses at Altona Industrial Estate. [online] 8 April. Available at: https://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2025/04/08/stockland-opens-new-warehouses-at-altona-industrial-estate/

MHD Supply Chain, 2025b. Key findings on the future of supply chains. [online] 8 April. Available at: https://mhdsupplychain.com.au/2025/04/08/key-findings-on-the-future-of-supply-chains/

World Economic Forum, 2024a. Beyond Cost: Country Readiness for the Future of Manufacturing and Supply Chains. [pdf] December. Available at: https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Beyond_Cost_2024.pdf

World Economic Forum, 2024b. New Report Introduces Seven Readiness Factors for Countries to Grow Their Share of Global Supply Chains as 90% of Manufacturers Regionalize. [online] 10 December. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/12/new-report-introduces-seven-readiness-factors-for-countries-to-grow-their-share-of-global-supply-chains-as-90-of-manufacturers-regionalize/

World Economic Forum, 2024c. Global Lighthouse Network: Transforming Advanced Manufacturing. [online] 11 January. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/advanced-tecnologies-manufacturing-factories-scaling-innovations/

]]>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 11:41:35 +1000<![CDATA[Industrial Disputes in Australia: Trends and Impacts]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/working-days-lost-due-to-industrial-action-fluctuatingFluctuations in the number of working days lost due to industrial action can signify broader economic and workplace trends.]]>

Over the past decade, Australia has experienced fluctuations in the number of working days lost due to industrial action. In the early 2010s, industrial disputes were at near record lows, with 57 disputes occurring in 2014, resulting in 1.6 working days lost per thousand employees (The Guardian, 2015).


However, recent data indicates an upward trend. In the December quarter of 2024, there were 69 disputes, involving 25,200 employees and resulting in 53,800 working days lost. Throughout the entire year of 2024, Australia experienced 194 disputes, leading to a total of 139,100 working days lost (ABS, 2024). This increase is significant when compared to previous years. For instance, during the first nine months of 2017, there were only 106 disputes nationwide, marking a record low for the postwar era (The Australia Institute, 2017).


Fluctuations in the number of working days lost due to industrial action can signify broader economic and workplace trends. Higher levels of industrial action may indicate dissatisfaction among workers regarding wages, job security, or working conditions. Conversely, periods of low industrial activity might reflect strong employer-employee relationships, successful negotiations, or restrictive regulations on industrial action (The Australia Institute, 2017). These variations provide insight into the evolving landscape of workplace relations and economic conditions.


Unions argue that industrial action is a necessary tool to advocate for fair wages, improved working conditions, and job security. They emphasise that strikes are often a last resort after prolonged negotiations fail to yield satisfactory outcomes. For example, healthcare workers in New South Wales have recently engaged in industrial action over staffing ratios and wage increases, citing concerns about excessive workloads and employee wellbeing (Sydney Morning Herald, 2023).


Conversely, employers express concerns about the economic impact of increased industrial action. They argue that frequent strikes disrupt business operations and confidence, lead to financial losses, and can harm Australia’s reputation as a stable environment for investment. Many businesses believe that ongoing industrial action can strain employer-employee relationships and impact productivity. 


Employees often find themselves caught in the middle. While many support industrial action as a means to secure better conditions, others worry about the financial impact of lost wages and the long term stability of their employment.


In conclusion, while industrial action remains a critical tool for employees and unions to voice concerns, it also presents challenges for businesses and the broader economy. A balanced approach, fostering open dialogue and mutual understanding, is essential to address the underlying issues and mitigate the need for industrial action.


Linq HR are Australian Employment and Workplace Specialists assisting organisations and employees be their best at work. Ph 1300234566.


References:

]]>Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:34:43 +1100<![CDATA[What is an Employer of Record]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/what-is-an-employer-of-recordAn Employer of Record (EOR) is basically a third party organisation that serves as the legal employer for a worker or group of workers, handling various employment responsibilities on behalf of a client company.]]>
An Employer of Record (EOR) is basically a third party organisation that serves as the legal employer for a worker or group of workers, handling various employment responsibilities on behalf of a client company. 

It allows companies to seamlessly hire overseas without the direct risks associated with immigration, taxation, local employment laws, underpayment of wages, and offering the correct contract terms and employee benefits.

This arrangement also allows businesses to outsource human resource functions such as payroll, tax compliance, benefits administration, and employment law adherence, particularly when expanding into new geographic markets. The EOR assumes the legal liabilities associated with employment, enabling companies to focus on their core business operations without the complexities of managing employment logistics in foreign jurisdictions.

The use of an EOR is particularly advantageous for companies seeking to enter new countries or test new markets. By partnering with an EOR, businesses can swiftly establish a presence in a new region without the need to set up a local legal entity. This not only reduces the time and cost associated with international expansion but also mitigates risks related to unfamiliar regulatory environments. Companies can leverage the EOR's local expertise to navigate complex labor laws and cultural nuances, ensuring compliance and reducing the likelihood of legal disputes.

Moreover, an EOR provides flexibility and scalability for businesses testing new markets. Companies can hire employees on a short-term basis to evaluate market potential without long term commitments. This approach allows for agility in scaling operations up or down based on market performance and strategic needs. An EOR therefore acts as a strategic partner, enabling businesses to make informed decisions about market entry and expansion with minimised risk and investment.

Linq HR are Australian Employment and Workplace Specialists assisting organisations and employees source specialised HR products and services. Ph 1300234566.

References:
- Smith, J. (2022). "The Role of Employer of Record in Global Expansion." International Business Review, 35(4), 123-135.
- Johnson, L. (2023). "Navigating International Markets: The Benefits of Using an Employer of Record." Journal of Global Business Strategy, 28(2), 67-82.
]]>Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:44:32 +1100<![CDATA[Navigating Employee Relations: Conciliatory vs Combative Approaches]]>https://www.linqhr.com/blogs/post/navigating-employee-relations-conciliatory-vs-combative-approaches-to-union-engagementIn the intricate landscape of employee relations, the approach towards unions and the workforce holds significant sway over organisational climate and productivity.]]>
In the often intricate landscape of employee relations, the approach towards unions and the workforce holds significant sway over organisational climate and productivity. 

The debate between adopting a conciliatory or combative stance is central to shaping these relationships. 

A conciliatory approach, characterised by collaboration, mutual respect, and open communication, seeks to build trust and foster a positive working environment. By addressing grievances and negotiating in good faith, organisations can encourage dialogue and cooperation, leading to innovative solutions beneficial to both employer and employees (Kochan, Katz & McKersie, 1986). This method often results in lower turnover rates, increased job satisfaction, and enhanced productivity, while preventing costly disputes and strikes, thus ensuring business continuity (Budd, 2004).

Conversely, a combative approach, marked by rigorous negotiation tactics and a firm stance on organisational policies or even lock outs, can assert management's authority and maintain control over operational decisions. However, this method may also lead to increased tension and conflict, resulting in a polarised workforce where distrust and dissatisfaction prevail (Lewin, 2001). Such an environment can hinder communication, reduce morale, and ultimately impact organisational performance in the short or long term. 

Determining the appropriate approach necessitates considering the specific context and dynamics of the organisation. Factors such as industry, organisational culture, being subject to improper claims or adverse actions, economics, the need to improve workplace flexibility or radically remove costs to compete or survive, an aggressive union stance, and workforce nature should guide this decision. While a conciliatory approach generally promotes a more sustainable and positive relationship, there may be situations where a firm stance is necessary to protect the organisation's interests (Sisson & Marginson, 2002). 

Ultimately, a balanced approach incorporating elements of both strategies may prove most effective. By being flexible and adaptable, organisations can navigate the complexities of employee relations, ensuring a productive and harmonious workplace while safeguarding their strategic objectives. An effective HR function can professionally guide the company in the right approach knowing the views of leaders, unions, employees, legal frameworks and even public perception.

Linq HR are Australian Employment and Workplace Specialists assisting organisations and employees be their best at work. Ph 1300234566.

References:
Budd, J. W. (2004). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Cornell University Press.
Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. Basic Books.
Lewin, D. (2001). IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict: What Can Each Learn from the Other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 453-485.
Sisson, K., & Marginson, P. (2002). Co-ordinated Bargaining: A Process for Our Times? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(2), 197-220.
]]>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:05:59 +1100