Linq HR - HR, Employee Relations and HR Tech Insights #fair work commission

Why Recording Minutes Matters in Enterprise Negotiations

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:23:17 +1000

In brief: Accurate minutes of enterprise agreement negotiations are a written record of discussions and commitments that supports transparency, compliance and governance. They help demonstrate genuine agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 when seeking Fair Work Commission approval, track progress and outstanding issues, and reduce misunderstandings and disputes. Employers should issue minutes soon after each meeting and invite all attendees to confirm or correct them.

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.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Why Employers Should Negotiate Enterprise Agreements Early and Supported Bargaining: What Employers Should Be Doing Now.

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/

Why Employers Should Negotiate Enterprise Agreements Early

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 10:58:19 +1000

In brief: An enterprise agreement continues to operate after its nominal expiry date until it is replaced or terminated, but once expired, employees and unions can take protected industrial action. Negotiating a replacement before expiry lets employers lock in wage increases and conditions, keep terms compliant with rising award rates, modernise clauses and avoid multi-employer bargaining. Early bargaining also signals proactive management and builds trust with the workforce.

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.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Why Recording Minutes Matters in Enterprise Negotiations and Supported Bargaining: What Employers Should Be Doing Now.

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.

Labour Hire Lessons from BHP's Fair Work Commission Defeat

Tue, 08 Jul 2025 11:24:48 +1000

In brief: Host employers cannot avoid pay parity by creating in-house labour hire subsidiaries or using third-party agencies for work that matches that of direct employees. The Fair Work Commission found BHP's Operations Services arrangement was in substance labour hire, and that workers doing the same or substantially the same work as directly employed mineworkers were entitled to the same full rate of pay. Employers in mining, manufacturing, logistics and construction should review their labour hire compliance before enforcement increases.

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.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Major Changes to Employee Relations Legislation in Australia (2022–2024) and What is an Employer of Record.

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 and AMWU v OS ACPM Pty Ltd and others [2025] FWCFB 134 (regulated labour hire arrangement orders – Goonyella Riverside, Peak Downs and Saraji). Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwcfb134.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

Fair Dismissal: Why the Right to Respond Matters

Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:33:59 +1000

In brief: The right to respond is an employee's opportunity to answer allegations about their conduct or capacity before a termination decision is made. Under section 387(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009, whether this opportunity was given is central to assessing if a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and a dismissal may be found unfair even where a valid reason exists. Hearing the response does not prevent termination; it ensures all facts and mitigating circumstances are considered first.

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.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Who is Ultimately Responsible for Employee Termination Decisions: Manager or HR Professional? and When you need an External Investigator.

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

Employee Relations: Conciliatory vs Combative Approaches

Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:05:59 +1100

In brief: A conciliatory approach to union engagement relies on collaboration, mutual respect and open communication, building trust, lowering turnover and preventing costly disputes. A combative approach uses firm positions, rigorous negotiation tactics or lock-outs to assert management authority, but can raise tension, polarise the workforce and reduce morale. The right stance depends on industry, culture, economics and union position, and a balanced approach drawing on both is likely to be most effective.

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 provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Supported Bargaining: What Employers Should Be Doing Now and Why Employers Should Negotiate Enterprise Agreements Early.

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.

Making the Right to Disconnect Laws Work for Your Business

Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:50:29 +1000

In brief: Australia's right to disconnect laws protect employees from being required to respond to work contact outside their contracted hours where that contact is unreasonable. Employers can make the laws work by updating employment contracts to state work hours and after-hours expectations, revising policies to set out the company's position and reasonable exceptions such as emergencies, and training managers and employees to respect boundaries. A proactive approach turns a compliance challenge into an opportunity.

Todays introduction of the Right to Disconnect laws in Australia is a pivotal moment for businesses. Originating in France, these types of laws, which protect many employees from being required to engage in work outside their contracted hours where it is unreasonable, offer both challenges and opportunities. To leverage these laws effectively, businesses must, if not already, introduce strategic steps to update workplace practices, ensuring compliance while fostering a positive work environment.

Updating Contracts and Policies

First, it's essential to update workplace contracts to reflect the new legal requirements. This includes specifying work hours clearly and outlining expectations regarding after hours communication. Employee contracts should be revised to include clauses that protect their right to disconnect, ensuring there is no ambiguity. Clear requirements should be stipulated for stand-by employees. These updates not only safeguard the business from potential legal challenges but also demonstrate a commitment to respecting employees’ personal time.

Revising Workplace Policies

Next, revising workplace policies is crucial. Policies should explicitly state the company’s stance on after-hours communication, including what constitutes reasonable exceptions, such as emergencies or critical business needs (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2023). Implementing clear guidelines will help prevent misunderstandings and ensure that both management and staff are on the same page regarding expectations.

Training and Communication

Effective communication and training are also key to making these laws work for your business. Employees and managers alike should be educated on the new policies and the importance of respecting boundaries. Regular training sessions can help reinforce the importance of these changes, ensuring that all levels of the organisation understand and adhere to the new norms.

In conclusion, making the Right to Disconnect laws work for your business requires a proactive approach. By updating contracts, revising policies, and ensuring clear communication, businesses can navigate these changes effectively, hopefully benefiting both the organisation and its employees.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Employee Relations Law Changes 2022–2024: Workforce Impacts and Psychological Hazards at Work: What Supervisors Must Do.

References

Fair Work Ombudsman (n.d.) Right to disconnect. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/hours-of-work-breaks-and-rosters/right-to-disconnect

Fair Work Commission (n.d.) Right to disconnect. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/new-laws/right-to-disconnect

Get Started Now

Workforce Management needs to be on every Company's Strategic Agenda

Tue, 06 Dec 2022 10:04:01 +1100

In brief: Workforce management belongs on every company's strategic agenda because recent workplace law changes affect almost every Australian employer and often shift the compliance burden onto employers. Strategic planning helps businesses become an employer of choice, avoid expensive claims and make compliance routine. Practical agenda items include ensuring leaders understand laws such as Respect at Work and Secure Jobs, Better Pay, stress-testing their effect on strategy and budgets, updating policies, monitoring behaviour, keeping records and preparing for union or bargaining approaches.

A wave of workplace law change

Since late 2022 there has been a continuous programme of significant workplace-related legal change which directly affects almost every employer and employee across Australia.

Some of these changes move responsibility firmly to the employer ensuring compliance, and in some cases having to prove themselves right after receiving accusations of doing wrong.

Update (November 2026): Since this article was written the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act 2022 has fully commenced (multi-employer bargaining and BOOT changes from 6 June 2023; fixed-term contract limits from 6 December 2023), followed by the Closing Loopholes Acts of 2023 and 2024 (labour hire ‘same job, same pay’, a new casual employment definition and employee-choice pathway from 26 August 2024, the right to disconnect from 26 August 2024 and, for small business, 26 August 2025, and a criminal wage-theft offence from 1 January 2025). Paid family and domestic violence leave of 10 days a year has applied to all employees since 2023. From 1 July 2026 the high income threshold is $190,100 and superannuation must be paid with each pay run under Payday Super (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2026a; 2026b; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2024; Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, 2026).

Even though many of the changes are mostly blanket across the country, practically it will have varying impacts and consequences by industry, employer size and the type of employee culture which already exists across your operations.

Why a strategic approach pays off

Those companies who can strategically deal with these changes should be able to excel as an Employer of Choice in the eyes of employees and the public, navigate and avoid expensive claims including for items not directly under your control but within your responsibilities under legislation, make compliance an everyday activity so it doesn’t distract from managing and growing your business, and prepare against the usual higher level of employee claims which can occur if the employment market conditions soften.

Six items for your strategic agenda

Some items which can be considered for your Company Strategic Agenda should include:

Ensuring your HR or People & Culture teams and leadership are familiar with changes and key elements across all workplace legislation including the Respect at Work positive duty (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2022), Secure Jobs, Better Pay, multi-employer bargaining, adverse action (general protections) claims, paid family and domestic violence leave, modern slavery, gender identity protections, the BOOT, wage underpayment and the criminal wage-theft offence, independent contractors, whistleblower complaints, data privacy, safety and industrial manslaughter laws, and psychosocial risks.
Stress testing potential impacts of these workplace legislations on future business strategy and making adjustments before signing off on implementation plans. Budget in scenarios for future salary, benefit and workplace compliance increases.
Implementing new Policies and Procedures or adjusting existing to capture changes in legislation or recent decisions. Changes must be clearly communicated to key stakeholders including employees where they need to know.
Monitoring employee and leadership behaviours, and contractor and customer interactions and behaviours as well (important under the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, for example).
Collecting and storing workplace information such as results of workplace surveys, results of investigations into complaints, employee reporting structures, company support programs and compliance related training initiatives.
Know how to respond to emerging practices such as an industry based wages increase request if approached by a Union representative or if bargaining is initiated by an individual employee.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Major changes to employee relations legislation in Australia 2022–2024 and Don’t overcook your workforce planning.

References

Australian Human Rights Commission (2022) Fact sheet: Respect@Work changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and AHRC Act 1986. December. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/complaint-information-service/fact-sheet-respectwork-changes-sex-discrimination-act-1984-ahrc-act-1986-december-2022 (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2024) Closing Loopholes. Available at: https://www.dewr.gov.au/closing-loopholes (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Ombudsman (2026a) Secure Jobs, Better Pay. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/legislation-changes/secure-jobs-better-pay (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Ombudsman (2026b) Family and domestic violence leave. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/family-and-domestic-violence-leave (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office (2026) Key 1 July 2026 employment law and superannuation rates and measures. Available at: https://www.vgso.vic.gov.au/key-1-july-2026-employment-law-and-superannuation-rates-and-measures (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Is Employee Relations in Australia still within its Teenage Years?

Thu, 01 Sep 2022 13:35:25 +1000

In brief: Employee relations in Australia can be likened to a teenager: it lacks clear direction, focuses on the present over the future and shows limited willingness to learn from experience. The system is shaped by many parties, including governments, lawyers, unions, tribunals and employers, and when they do not pursue a common goal each seeks more voice and control, adding complexity. All participants should share one purpose, the continuous improvement of overall productivity, so the whole country benefits.

A complex and crowded landscape

The Industrial Landscape in Australia is complex and perhaps failing to achieve the objective of harmoniously balancing productivity gains with workers rights.

The teenage analogy

Teenagers are often cited as a group who can lack direction, experience an imbalanced perception between what is important for their future compared to that which seems important right now, have a lack of cooperation or willingness to learn automatically from those with prior experience. They are influenced by many people and organisations ranging from schools and teachers, parents and family members, sporting coaches, their peer group - all offering their perspectives on right and wrong, moving norms of society, and social media. But their goal is often simple - reach a level of education and find a job.

In some similar ways Employee Relations as a group in Australia has a wide mix of influences ranging from layers of Government, a booming workplace lawyering industry, trade unions at many levels, complex workplace rules and legislation, Tribunals and other Specialist Workplace Government Departments, social changes from different generations across the workplace, educational and training organisations, the News networks and of course employees and business itself.

Update (November 2026): The complexity described here has only grown. The Fair Work Commission received a record 53,666 applications in 2025–26, around 35% of them unfair dismissal claims, and reports that roughly 40% of individual applicants now use AI tools to prepare their claims (Fair Work Commission, 2026, as reported by Tilo, 2026).

How could the system mature?

So how could the Australian Employee Relations landscape be viewed as still being within its teenage years? One item which stands out in common is the level of complexity with both. When either party or influence lacks moving in a similar direction towards a common goal then each can scramble to increase their voice, preferences and control. This can lead to higher levels of complexity as each has their needs met.

One common purpose: productivity

There should only be one common purpose of all those involved within the Australian Employee Relations landscape, and that should include the continuous improvement of overall productivity so the entire country can benefit for years to come. This at least would make it easier for the next generations of our teenagers whose life is probably always going to be naturally complex anyhow.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Conciliatory vs combative approaches to union engagement and Working days lost due to industrial action.

References

Tilo, D. (2026) ‘AI-driven claims surge pushes Fair Work Commission to record caseload’, HC Magazine, 28 October, reporting Fair Work Commission (2026) Annual Report 2025–26. Available at: https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/ai-driven-claims-surge-pushes-fair-work-commission-to-record-caseload/595203 (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Insights into using Australian Employment Lawyers

Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:00:00 +1000

In brief: Australian employment lawyers specialise in advice on employment and workplace matters and can act for companies, governments, unions, employees and contractors. For employers they draft contracts and agreements, defend unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, prevent underpayments, review HR policies and interpret awards, and can represent clients at tribunals and in state and federal courts. Fees vary, so employers should choose a lawyer whose expertise and cost suit the matter at hand.

Employment Lawyers specialise in providing advice on employment and workplace matters.

Who employment lawyers act for

They can work for companies, governments, unions, employees and contractors.

For companies they often assist in developing employee contracts and agreements, defending employee unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, prevention of underpayments (intentional underpayment has been a criminal offence since 1 January 2025, carrying up to 10 years’ imprisonment (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2024)), union matters, HR policies and practices, and award interpretation.

The legislation they cover

They can assist with workplace legislation such as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), including the National Employment Standards, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and its positive duty to prevent sexual harassment (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2022), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and state anti-discrimination laws, work health and safety laws, and the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (Cth).

Representation in tribunals and courts

They can represent you at a number of levels including Tribunals, and State and Federal Courts.

Update (November 2026): Representation in the Fair Work Commission is not automatic. Under section 596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 a lawyer or paid agent may represent a party only with the Commission’s permission, which is granted where it would make the matter more efficient given its complexity, where a party cannot represent itself effectively, or where fairness requires it. Since early 2026 the Commission’s application and response forms require parties to explain why permission should be granted (Fair Work Act 2009, s 596; HWL Ebsworth, 2026).

Employment Law Barristers can assist Employment Lawyers with more complex legal cases.

Choosing the right lawyer

Effective Employment Lawyers have the ability to develop a clear understanding of your employment issue and support you towards the best possible outcome.

Cost between lawyers can vary so it is important to find one which best fits your budget and which has the right level of expertise for your matter.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers, working alongside your chosen employment lawyers, and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace, where employment law firms are listed. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Who is ultimately responsible for termination decisions and Benefits and risks of not using professional HR advice for SMEs.

References

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2024) Compliance and enforcement: criminalising wage theft. Fact sheet. Available at: https://www.dewr.gov.au/download/15937/compliance-and-enforcement-criminalising-wage-theft/35722/compliance-and-enforcement-criminalising-wage-theft/pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 596. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2009A00028/latest/text (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

HWL Ebsworth (2026) Fair Work Commission to reform general protections dismissal application process. 26 February. Available at: https://hwlebsworth.com.au/fair-work-commission-to-reform-general-protections-dismissal-application-process (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Resolving Employee Unfair Dismissal Claims

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:57:00 +1100

In brief: An unfair dismissal claim arises when a former employee believes their dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Because Australian unfair dismissal laws are complex and change often, employers should seek early help from a lawyer or paid agent specialising in unfair dismissal defence to understand their legal position. The preferred outcome is to resolve the claim directly with the former employee; if that fails, the matter may proceed to a formal tribunal hearing.

Who can make a claim

Certain people that worked for your business could claim unfair dismissal believing they have been terminated in a harsh, unjust, or unreasonable manner (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2026).

Update (November 2026): To be eligible, an employee must generally have completed six months’ service (12 months with a small business of fewer than 15 employees), be covered by an award or enterprise agreement or earn under the high income threshold, currently $190,100 from 1 July 2026, and lodge with the Fair Work Commission within 21 days of the dismissal taking effect. The application fee is $92.70. Compensation is capped at the lesser of 26 weeks’ pay or $95,050. Small businesses that follow the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and can show they did, will have the dismissal deemed fair (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2026; Fair Work Commission, 2026a; 2026b; n.d.).

Why early advice matters

Australian laws relating to unfair dismissal are constantly evolving, complex and time consuming to understand and follow.

So it may be necessary to seek the assistance of a lawyer or paid agent skilled in unfair dismissal defence. Note that in the Fair Work Commission a lawyer or paid agent can only represent a party with the Commission’s permission (Fair Work Act 2009, s 596).

Early assistance can help you understand your company's legal position and recommend a path towards resolution.

Resolving the claim at conciliation

The best way to resolve unfair dismissal claims is through resolution together with the former employee but this is not always successful.

Update (November 2026): Commission data bear this out. In the September 2025 quarter 4,878 unfair dismissal applications were lodged and 3,758 matters settled without a decision, roughly three in four. Conciliation is held online, usually two to five weeks after lodgement, and takes about 90 minutes (Fair Work Commission, 2025; 2026c).

If the matter proceeds to hearing

The next step could involve a formal Fair Work Commission hearing and decision, which may order reinstatement or compensation.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers, including with unfair dismissal matters, and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace, where employment lawyers and paid agents are listed. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:The most important step in a fair dismissal: the right to respond and Who is ultimately responsible for termination decisions.

References

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 382–385, 394, 596. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2009A00028/latest/text (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Commission (n.d.) Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/legislation-regulations/small-business-fair-dismissal-code (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Commission (2025) Quarterly report to the Fair Work Ombudsman: 1st quarter 2025–26. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/reporting/quarterly-report-fwo-1st-quarter-25-26.pdf (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Commission (2026a) High income threshold. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Commission (2026b) Increase to application fee 2026–27. 1 July. Available at: https://www.fwc.gov.au/about-us/news-and-media/news/increase-application-fee-2026-27 (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Commission (2026c) What is conciliation? Available at: https://fwc.gov.au/job-loss-or-dismissal/unfair-dismissal/conciliation-unfair-dismissal/what-conciliation (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Fair Work Ombudsman (2026) Unfair dismissal. Available at: https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/unfair-dismissal (Accessed: 6 November 2026).