Webinar – Exercising Your Positive Duty With Positivity

Webinar – Exercising Your Positive Duty With Positivity

Latest News & Events

Webinar – Exercising Your Positive Duty With Positivity

money changing hands

ABOUT

From 1 December 2025, all Victorian businesses have a new positive duty to eliminate or reduce psychosocial hazards and that involves a lot more than just doing a risk assessment and updating your policies. It also provides a great opportunity for business leaders and HR and WHS professionals to generate real and lasting cultural change with strong employee engagement and psychological safety.

Peter Maguire, Practice Leader at Ridgeline HR and PosWork will be discussing this with Catie Paterson from Blue Kite Consulting. They share decades of experience in the HR field and are experts in workplace relations and related compliance as well as in positive psychology based workplace cultures and change management. When you blend all of that together, you’ll get much more than the same old risk management spiel on psychosocial hazards and they’ll teach you how to address the positive duty with positivity using a strengths-based approach with some practical exercises to boot.

DATE

Monday 10 November 2025 11:00 AM – Tuesday 11 November 2025 12:00 PM (UTC+11)

Bookings at https://www.trybooking.com/DGREZ

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Court clarifies annual salary rules

Court clarifies annual salary rules

Latest News & Events

Court clarifies annual salary rules

money changing hands
 For many years, businesses have been paying people on an annualised salary basis using set off clauses in common law contracts to compensate for and set off monetary award entitlements against over award remuneration.  And, a long as people ended up better off overall than they would have been if the award was applied literally, that all seemed fair enough but is it? The Federal Court begs to differ. So what does that all mean?

 

About this case

This decision by the Federal Court arose from proceedings initiated by the Fair Work Ombudsman and a class action for employees in relation to alleged underpayment of wages by Coles and Woolworths. 

At issue was the question of over how long a period could an employer rely on a set-off provision in an employment contract to effect set-off of and compensation for award entitlements such as minimum wages, allowances, overtime and shift loadings and penalty rates.

In Coles case, the relevant period in the contract was 12 months and in Woolworths it was 6 months. 

There have been cases in the Fair Work Commission where annualised wage arrangements have been inserted in modern awards but the door had always been left open in the related decisions for another gateway via common law contracts.

The General Retail Industry Award 2020 which applies in this case doesn’t have an Annualised Wage Arrangements clause but it is quite specific on this issue in that it states: “Wages must be paid for a pay period according to the number of hours worked by the employee in the period or they may be averaged over a fortnight”. This “averaging” element is consistent with other arrangements across different industries where RDOs and averaging of wages is commonplace.

The judge in this case made the decision that employees have to be paid for hours in the pay period in which they worked them. That invalidated the arrangements that Coles and Woolworths relied on for people to work additional hours in some pay periods and set off the overtime and penalty payments applying to those hours against above award remuneration on other pay periods for up to 6 or 12 months.

So they now each have another considerable set of underpayments of wages to deal with, something that unfortunately happens far too often. 

Record keeping requirements 

A secondary issue that arose was in relation to Coles and Woolworths being found to have not complied with their record keeping obligations.

Specifically, Fair Work Regulations provide that an employer must maintain records of overtime hours worked and the starting and finishing times of overtime hours if a penalty rate of loading applies to those hours.

 It is quite common for people to believe that, if you are on salary, you don’t have to record your working hours. The judge made it clear that having a set-off clause does not exempt employers from other obligations under legislation and regulations and so Coles and Woolworths were obliged to maintain these overtime records and were in breach for not doing so.

The judge’s decision in this regard is consistent with Annual Wage Arrangement clauses where they exist in modern awards in that they require the keeping of records of starting and finishing times and breaks and annual reconciliations of actual hours and remuneration against what entitlements under the award would otherwise have been (ie but for the Annualised Wage Arrangement).

The decision also puts the two employers in a difficult situation in resolving underpayment claims if they don’t have clear records of the days and times that relevant employees actually worked pay period by pay period.

Other considerations

 Firstly, I would note that these major retailers have been trying to find a way around penalty rates for many years going back to WorkChoices which preceded the Fair Work era. The issue resurfaced again recently when employers made application to the Fair Work Commission to have the General Retail Industry Award 2020 varied to provide for a standard loading on minimum rates in compensation for overtime loadings and penalty rates.

The Albanese Government responded with a commitment to outlaw removal of overtime loadings and penalty rates from modern awards by legislation from 1 July 2026.

So the wagons really are circling around these entitlements in government, in the courts and in modern awards.

What do we learn from all of that? 

A few thoughts:

  1. You need to ensure that, if an employee is covered by a modern award or an enterprise agreement, the employee receives their full entitlement to wages, allowances, penalty rates and overtime loadings and any other monetary benefit as per that instrument in every pay period (subject to any averaging arrangement or other variation allowed for in the instrument).
  2. If there is significant variation in different pay periods in the hours of work of an employee who is on an annualised salary (or flat weekly or fortnightly or monthly wage), it is critical that you maintain records of the hours and do the reconciliations to ensure that the employee is not disadvantaged and that you have the evidence to support your position in the event of an underpayment claim.
  3. If you are using set-off clauses in common law contracts, you need to get these reviewed in the context of this decision and the difference that makes in their legal application.
  4. There are a variety of reasons why it is good practice to have accurate records of your employees’ actual (as opposed to notional or contractual) working hours, some of which are legal ones like the ones that have been cited in this case. So, if you aren’t doing that, it is something for you to look at.
  5. You might also find that it is just as easy to pay people an hourly rate and comply with the award in relation to additional payments for extra hours as and when those situations arise.

If you need someone to talk through the issues and options for your business, we would be happy to help.

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance with any issues like this in your business.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Fair Work and Safe Work crossover?

Fair Work and Safe Work crossover?

Latest News & Events

Fair Work and Safe Work crossover?

money changing hands
Recently, Safe Work NSW issued a prohibition notice to an employer directing it to pause in a redundancy consultation process because of concerns that it could have been causing psychological harm to workers. Consultation on redundancy situations has generally been in the domain of the Fair Work Commission but now we are seeing a crossover into the workplace health and safety jurisdiction via the positive duty that employers now have to eliminate or control psychosocial hazards, one of which is “poor change management”. What does this development mean?  

 

About this case

The University of Technology is implementing a cost reduction program planned to run through until 2029.

That potentially involves the loss of 150 or more jobs and the consultation process with employees and unions was underway with staff meetings and the release of the proposed plan scheduled for 3 and 4 September 2025.

On 2 September 2025, a Safe Work Inspector issued a prohibition notice in the belief that UTS workers would be exposed to a “serious and imminent risk of psychological harm” as a result of UTS’s Academic Change Proposal, in contravention of the Work Health and Safety Act and the Work Health and Safety Regulation.

It was reported that Academics at UTS complained of feeling stressed and fearful after the university paused enrolments for a significant number of the courses that they offer.

The prohibition notice was lifted after consultation with Safe Work NSW which resulted in UTS agreeing to allow more time and to consult with Health and Safety Representatives about measures to mitigate risks from psychosocial hazards. 

Our tertiary education sector is undergoing significant challenges associated with program funding, cost competitiveness and commercial viability.

It is also an industry sector which has been plagued with compliance breaches with a string of universities including UTS being required to enter into Enforceable Undertakings with the Fair Work Ombudsman and having to make good on millions of dollars in underpayments to staff. In UTS’s case, that happened in 2023 and amounted to $5.7 million in underpaid entitlements.

And, as is the case at UTS, that sort of culture makes for a significant level of union membership and representation when situations like this arise because there are underlying issues around psychological safety.

What can we learn from this? 

 There are quite a few take aways:

  1. Psychosocial hazards are a hot issue for WHS regulators and the positive duty on employers means that you have to show that you are actively managing them not just reacting when something happens.
  2. The lines between different jurisdictions are becoming increasingly blurred and people are likely to access the one which is going to deliver more timely and forceful impact – a WHS Prohibition Notice is likely going to be quicker and more impactful than a dispute notification to the Fair Work Commission.
  3. Gone are the days when you could just treat consultation as this tick box compliance exercise rather than as a genuine consideration with real employee voice and wellbeing components.
  4. This situation raises questions about the interaction of psychosocial hazards and other complaints on Fair Work matters – for example, would an underpayment of wages also constitute a breach in the psychosocial hazards space (inadequate reward and recognition and poor organisational justice come to mind).
  5. When implementing change which has an impact on people’s jobs, ensure that you follow the Consultation provisions in the relevant industrial instrument and that you genuinely allow sufficient time and proper consideration of employee questions and suggestions and that you respond to them reasonably and with adequate explanation. 
  6. You also need to be giving consideration to the real effects of any changes on people and how you support them individually and collectively through the process.

Change is complicated and something that you would be well advised to get some professional help with – from someone who understands the legal requirements but is also adept in communicating and helping people through the process in as positive a way as possible. 

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance with any issues like this in your business.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Your consultation obligations and AI

Your consultation obligations and AI

Latest News & Events

Your consultation obligations and AI

money changing hands
We have been hearing a lot about the uptake of AI by corporations to automate tasks and reduce labour requirements with concerns about the loss of human job opportunities very much on the rise and the ACTU has called for special arrangements for consultation with workers on prospective implementation of artificial intelligence tools in their businesses……but are they needed?  

 

Consultation about major workplace change

Perhaps not?

You see all modern awards and enterprise agreements have consultation clauses which provide that, If an employer makes a definite decision to make major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the employer has certain obligations. Here is what the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 says that the employer must do: 

(a) give notice of the changes to all employees who may be affected by them and their representatives (if any); and

(b) discuss with affected employees and their representatives (if any):

(i) the introduction of the changes; and

(ii) their likely effect on employees; and

(iii) measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of the changes on employees; and

(c) commence discussions as soon as practicable after a definite decision has been made.

38.2 For the purposes of the discussion under clause 38.1(b) , the employer must give in writing to the affected employees and their representatives (if any) all relevant information about the changes including:

(a) their nature; and

(b) their expected effect on employees; and

(c) any other matters likely to affect employees.

38.3 Clause 38.2 does not require an employer to disclose any confidential information if its disclosure would be contrary to the employer’s interests.

38.4 The employer must promptly consider any matters raised by the employees or their representatives about the changes in the course of the discussion under clause  38.1(b) .

38.5 In clause 38 significant effects , on employees, includes any of the following:

(a) termination of employment; or

(b) major changes in the composition, operation or size of the employer’s workforce or in the skills required; or

(c) loss of, or reduction in, job or promotion opportunities; or

(d) loss of, or reduction in, job tenure; or

(e) alteration of hours of work; or

(f) the need for employees to be retrained or transferred to other work or locations; or

(g) job restructuring.

What happens if an employer does not consult or comply with the clause

Because it is a matter that is in the award, it is subject to the disputes settlement procedure in the award and accordingly employees and/or unions could lodge disputes with the Fair Work Commission for conciliation or arbitration of such a dispute.

What it all means

Firstly, let’s be clear, regardless of how you contract them, most employees have award coverage and therefore award consultation provisions will apply to most workers, especially those below executive and professional levels (although some awards cover some of them too).

So, if you are introducing changes with AI that will have an impact on jobs or roles or training or the other elements mentioned in the award clauses, start with what your award obligations say.

Secondly, be proactive and make a sound business case for what you are proposing to do and, if you can, engage your people in the design and change management process.

Thirdly, try to find ways to mitigate the effects for people through retraining, redeployment, redesign of jobs and other creative paths. Maybe there can be a bit of job crafting around life balance for some people. Maybe there is someone who would like to retire but needs some support to do that. It isn’t one size fits all but you do need to be fair.

Fourthly, keep it honest and transparent with frequent and open communication…..with compassion.

Fifthly, make it a positive experience for people and find milestones and reasons to celebrate along the way.

Finally, managing change is complicated in psychology and process, in effectiveness and from a legal perspective. Get someone who know how to do this stuff well and progressively to help you. 

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance with any issues like this in your business.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Is the sky falling on salaries?

Is the sky falling on salaries?

Latest News & Events

Is the sky falling on salaries?

money changing hands
There has been a lot of noise from employer bodies and conservative media about the Albanese government’s decision to legislate protections of penalty rates and overtime loadings but will it really mean the end of salaries as we know them and will that mean reduced flexibility and productivity as they claim? 

The issue

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 was introduced to Parliament last week.

It proposes amendments which would have the effect of:

  • ensuring that the specified penalty or overtime rates in modern awards cannot be reduced; and
  • closing loopholes in the modern awards safety net that allow employers to “roll up” penalty and overtime rates into a single rate of pay that doesn’t fairly compensate award-reliant employees for remuneration they would have otherwise received.

The employer reaction

A couple of headlines about the federal government legislation to protect penalty rates caught my eye:

– HR Daily: “Penalty rates Bill a “backwards step” for employers”; and
– Dynamic Business: “Labor blocks business flexibility with new penalty rate laws”

Sounds like life will get tougher for employers, doesn’t it?

The truth

No, it won’t……..other than for businesses which were planning on reducing costs by reducing workers’ wages via cuts in penalty and overtime rates.  

Employers are already required by law to ensure employees are paid at least what they would be entitled to under any applicable industrial instrument ie a modern award or enterprise agreement.  

That includes penalty rates and overtime loadings. You can’t contract out of them but you can repackage them in individual flexibility agreements, common law contracts or enterprise agreements provided that employees are better off financially than they would be if the award was literally applied.

The amendment actually notes that it is about: “a single rate that doesn’t fairly compensate award-reliant employees for remuneration they would have otherwise received.” So it is saying you can’t pay people less than they would be entitled to under all of the monetary provisions of the award that covers them.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill also states that individual flexibility agreements and enterprise agreements are still available for compensating for setting off entitlements like overtime and penalty rates subject to satisfaction of the Better Off Overall Test ie the employee has to be better off under the agreement.

What it all means

This has been triggered by an application from an employer association to have an award varied to allow for exclusion of penalty and overtime rates via a flat fixed overboard payment.

Sadly, there are countless cases of employers underpaying workers by implementing just these sorts of arrangements via contracts or agreements which do not adequately compensate them based on the work that they do, when they do it and the conditions in which they do it.

This legislation will just make the obvious obligations that employers already have irrefutable and strengthen the case of wage theft prosecutions for employers who don’t comply.

It won’t reduce flexibility or productivity – it will just preserve what are already legal rights but it will be legislatively explicit now. 

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance with any issues like this in your business.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Is this the death knell for labour hire?

Is this the death knell for labour hire?

Latest News & Events

Is this the death knell for labour hire?

money changing hands
Does the Fair Work Commission Full bench decision on “same job, same pay” and Regulated Labour Hire Arrangement Orders pose a threat to viability of labour hire providers?  

“We are satisfied that the evidence does not establish that the work of employees of OS Production and OS Maintenance involves the provision of an identifiable and discrete service to BMA as distinct from the supply of the labour of those workers to work in or as part of the business of the BMA.” 

And, with those words, a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission determined that 2,200 labour hire workers working on 13 Queensland mining sites should get an average wage increase of about $30,000 per annum.

About “Same Job, Same Pay”

The Albanese Government introduced the Same Job Same Pay legislative changes specifically to combat organisations which had enterprise agreements with high wages and outsourced their labour requirements to reduce labour costs. They did so by using a labour hire organisation to employ their workers rather than directly employing them.

The “Same Job, Same Pay” amendments enable applications to be made to the Fair Work Commission to have the terms of the host’s enterprise agreement apply to the labour hire workers.

What that means is that, if such an application is successful, labour hire becomes a much less attractive commercial option as the host would be charged by the labour hire provider for the wages of labour hire workers at the same level that they would have to pay if they employed these people directly plus the labour hire provider’s on costs and service fees and profit margin.

Does this mean the end of labour hire?

Absolutely not.

“Same Job, Same Pay” only.affects circumstances where the labour hire firm’s customer has an enterprise agreement that would cover employees doing the same sort of work as the labour hire workers.

So for the vast majority of businesses, this is nothing to worry about – you can still use labour hire if you want to.

However, there is no question that businesses in the space that the “Same Job, Same Pay” changes are designed to address played a key role in the growth of labour hire as an alternative labour sourcing option.

So labour hire businesses which are heavily invested in that space are likely to feel the full impact of this decision.

Please call us on 0438 533 311 or email enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au if you want to explore how we might be of assistance.

 

 

 

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

0438 533 311

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH