Earlier this month, we published an update in respect of the outcome of the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review and impending superannuation guarantee changes.

Whilst these are no doubt the most significant of the upcoming changes for employers to be aware of, 1 July presents additional further considerations for business in the people space.

The additional changes that are likely to matter most to employers are set out in this further blog post.

After another period of significant change for business in the employment law space, it is now time to prepare for changes coming in the 2022/23 financial year.

The most significant of these changes arises from the Fair Work Commission (FWC)’s recent annual wage review, a decision that will impact employers and employees against rising inflationary and cost of living pressures.

For the first time since the annual review decision in 2010/11, the FWC has moved away from a uniform percentage wage increase and implemented a 2-tier wage increase methodology to provide more significant percentage increases to lower paid employees.

What is the meaning of “reasonable additional hours” under the Fair Work Act? To date, there has been very little case law in this area leading to a level of uncertainty for employers in this space.

It’s no secret that determining the fine line between “employee” and “independent contractor” causes businesses in Australia headaches. Two recent High Court decisions, heard and handed down together in February 2022, have provided increased certainty and shifted the landscape for engaging contractors moving forward.

Managing the operational demands of payroll is challenging, and the complexities of the Australian employment and industrial relations system only add to these difficulties. Taking into account the further layer of tax and superannuation laws, it is not uncommon for issues to inadvertently and mistakenly arise.

In Part I of this series, we explored when an employer can request medical information from an employee or ask them to attend an independent medical examination.

In this second instalment of our 3-part series, we consider how employers should assess information about an employee’s fitness for work, including dealing with conflicting opinions between medical practitioners.

In the last quarter of 2019, The Workplace is shining a spotlight on managing ill and injured workers.

This blog is the first of a three-part series into some of the firm’s most frequently asked questions.

In this first instalment, we explore the above question which, unsurprisingly, does not always have a simple answer.

A day is a day, isn’t it?  As the Full Bench of the Federal Court has recently found, the answer to the question is surprisingly complex.

In Mondelez v AMWU, the court was asked to consider the meaning of the word “day” in relation to the NES entitlement to 10 days of paid personal/carer’s leave.

The matter related to 12-hour shift workers at Mondelez’s Cadbury plant in Tasmania but has broad reaching implications for employers of shift workers and employees working condensed hours over less than 5 days per week.

Have you recently become aware of complaints of inappropriate behaviour or conduct in the workplace?  Are you preparing to embark on a workplace investigation into the complaints?

Well-run interviews are critical to the vast majority of investigations, to determine what the complainant, respondent and witnesses saw and heard.

It is therefore unsurprising that we are often asked the question: should we audio-record interviews or instead make a written contemporaneous record of what is said?

The Fair Work Commission has varied[1] a number of modern awards with existing annualised wage provisions and introduced new annualised wage provisions into other awards. These new annualised wage award provisions will take effect from 1 March 2020 and are significantly different to the existing award terms. The new annualised wage award terms are very prescriptive and include a number of administrative requirements that many employers will find impractical and onerous. We encourage employers to review their annualised wage arrangements now and consider whether it is practical to implement the new regime and, if not, what other compliant options exist.