Adult juniors to get adult wages

Adult juniors to get adult wages

Latest News & Events

Adult juniors to get adult wages

money changing hands

Lots of modern awards and enterprise agreements have junior rates of pay typically applying to workers who are under 20 or 21 years of age who don’t get a full adult wage for the work that they do. In a landmark decision, the Fair Work Commission has decided that that has to change for at least some of them.

About the case

On 6 June 2024, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) applied to change junior rates, seeking to increase rates of pay for employees aged 20 years old and under in the following 3 awards:

  • Fast Food Industry Award 2020
  • General Retail Industry Award 2020
  • Pharmacy Industry Award 2020

Part of the rationale behind the application is that employees who are 18 years or older should receive full adult rates because they are treated as adults in so many other aspects of law and life. For example, when you reach 18 years of age, you can legally:

  • Vote in elections (you must enrol with the Australian Electoral Commission)
  • Stand for public office (with some age limits for certain roles)
  • Serve on a jury if called
  • Be treated as an adult in the legal system (no longer a minor)
  • Enter into legally binding contracts (leases, loans, phone plans, etc.)
  • Open and control your own bank accounts and finances independently
  • Buy and consume alcohol legally
  • Purchase tobacco products
  • Enter licensed venues like pubs and clubs without a guardian
  • Apply for a full (unrestricted) driver licence (after meeting state requirements)
  • Travel independently and apply for an adult passport
  • Get married without parental consent
  • Make your own medical decisions
  • Create a will
  • Be fully responsible for debts and legal obligations

It is a fairly compelling argument.

About the decision

The Full Bench has decided that:

  • after 6 months’ experience, the rates payable to adult junior employees will be set at a rate of 100% of the full adult rate of pay
  • the current percentage rates for adult junior employees with less than 6 months’ experience with their current employer will stay the same
  • there will be no change to junior rates for persons aged under 18.

About implementation

The Full Bench has proposed that the decision be implemented in phases through a series of adjustments of 5% made on and from 1/12/26, 1/7/27, 1/12/27, 1/7/28, 1/12/28 and 1/7/29 with the effect of:

  • The rate for 20 year olds going from the current 90% to 100% on 1 July 2027
  • The rate for 19 year olds going from the current 80% to 100% on 1 July 2028
  • The rate for 18 year olds going from the current 70% to 100% on 1 July 2029

The Full Bench has called for submissions on the proposed implementation method but we see little likelihood of it changing and confirmation should be expected in the not too distant future.

Thoughts?

We have a few:

  1. As noted above, an employee who is in their first 6 months of employment is not eligible for these increases. So it would appear that the junior rates for 18 to 20 year olds will stay in the awards and it will be up to employers to increase their wages to the adult rate once they complete six months service. Just one extra layer of complexity and another administrative task to deal with.
  2. These increases will of course apply on top of award wage increases from Annual Wage Reviews that take effect from 1 July each year which will mean a double whammy of those increases and the Adult Junior adjustments from the same date in the next 3 years.
  3. Now that this decision has been made, we can expect a raft of applications to vary every other award with rates for juniors or unapprenticed youths and that these adjustments will flow fairly automatically to those other awards.
  4. For female dominated industries where award rates have recently been increased significantly on work value and gender equality grounds and there are junior rates (eg in the Children’s Services Award 2020), there is a compounding effect.
  5. Other award variations are likely to be necessary eg with adult apprentices which are based on the premise that an adult is at least 21 years old.
  6. The next test case might perhaps be on rates for trainees and apprentices – we will have to wait and see,
  7. If you have an enterprise agreement with junior rates in it, you will need to prepare to change that in your next agreement because the Better Off Overall Test will require that. 

If you need a hand working through what this all means for your business, send us a message through the “Tell us what you need help with” form below.

 

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

Changing gears on consultation

Changing gears on consultation

Latest News & Events

Changing gears on consultation

money changing hands

We are long used to having obligations to consult employees on matters that affect them under Workplace Health and Safety laws and under modern awards and in other jurisdictions but, in recent years, the focus on consultation has intensified and has become more complex than employers have been used to. Plus, with the introduction of positive duties, the lines are getting a bit blurred between jurisdictions. So what does that all mean going forward?

Our traditional consultation obligations

For decades, awards have required employers to consult employees on matters that affect them like restructures and introduction of new technology and, more recently, a specific obligation to consult employees about variations to hours of work has been introduced.

Similarly, Workplace Health and Safety laws and regulations and codes of practice have imposed obligations on “Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking” to consult workers about matters that might affect their health and safety.

These duties were largely interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to:

  1. Inform people about a proposed change, why it is happening and what the potential effects on people are
  2. Recognise any representative that employees might have like a Health and Safety Representative or a Union Representative
  3. Listen to what the employees/workers and/or their representatives had to say and consider their views
  4. Having done so, make a final decision and advise people of the outcome and reasons for it.

The duties also extended to responding to any concerns that people or their representatives might raise via WHS Issue Resolution Procedures or workplace relations dispute settlement procedures.

So what has changed? 

In short …. lots.

Fair Work Reforms

In recent years, the following changes have been made by the current federal Labor government:

  • In relation to requests for flexible working arrangements for designated eligible employees under s65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and for requests for extension of parental leave beyond 12 months, new consultation obligations and a passage to the Fair Work Commission for determination in the event of a dispute
  • Similar obligations re consultation and avenues for dispute resolution in respect to the new FWC jurisdiction regarding “the right to disconnect”
  • Increased scrutiny of the genuineness of consultation in enterprise agreement making, especially in relation to employees properly understanding the effects of approving the enterprise agreement (ie how it will affect them) and the employer’s obligation for full disclosure.

Positive Duties 

Essentially, these up the ante on what were already obligations to protect people from risks of injury and illness from sexual harassment and gender-based behaviour and psychosocial hazards.

The positive duties arose from a series of investigations and studies that showed that these risks were common and having serious effects on people’s psychological, emotional and physical wellbeing. Associated with that were ballooning costs in WorkCover claims and escalating demands on systems and resources for treatment of psychological injuries and illnesses.

As a result, we now have much more defined obligations re what we must do protect people from those risks and an increased regulator focus on those areas of risk with additional resources to prosecute them.

The other element is that there is a blurring of the lines in the sense that, with respect to certain matters such as the management of change or issues around sexual harassment (to name a couple), they can be prosecuted in multiple jurisdictions.

The Decisions

Governments make changes and then courts and tribunals decide how they should work.

There have been a number of cases that have been instructive in this regard:

  1. SafeWork NSW intervened in a restructuring program at the University of Technology Sydney that was initiated to reduce costs and involved the potential loss of 150 jobs. 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. They had to pause the process and go through a process of adjustments and convincing SafeWork NSW that they were going through an appropriate process.
  2. At around the same time, the Finance Services Union lodged a dispute with the Fair Work Commission over extensive job cuts at ANZ and the consultation process associated with them putting a similar matter into a different jurisdiction, but with the union making reference to psychosocial hazards around poor change management being in play.
  3. In another case, Westpac was found wanting relative to a request for a flexible working arrangement from an eligible employee under s65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in that they didn’t have genuine business grounds, they didn’t consult properly (in considering the employee’s compromise proposal) and they didn’t comply with their statutory obligation to respond to the request within 21 days.

What can we learn from this?

There are quite a few takeaways:

  1. Psychosocial hazards are a hot issue for WHS regulators and the positive duty on employers means that you have to be able to show that you are actively managing them and properly consulting people, not just reacting when something happens.
  2. The lines between different jurisdictions are becoming increasingly blurred and people will access the one that they feel offers the best avenue for a win for them as has happened with the WHS pathway in the UTS case and the FWC pathway in the FSU/ANZ case.
  3. Gone are the days when you could just treat consultation as a tick box exercise, rather than as an active, inclusive and genuine consideration with real employee voice and wellbeing components.
  4. When implementing significant change in your business which affects people’s roles or the way that they perform their duties, ensure that you plan and execute the changes carefully, understanding the real effects for people and allowing adequate time and proper consideration of employees’ questions and views.
  5. You should also have due regard for employees’ wellbeing, your consultation obligations under both WHS and workplace relations law (and any other relevant jurisdiction) and how you support people individually and collectively through the change process.
  6. Change is complicated and it is something that you should get professional assistance with from someone who understands the legal obligations in the various jurisdictions and is also adept in communicating with employees and helping the business, managers and people through the process.

One of the key challenges for large employers is how they reintegrate their HR and WHS functions so as to manage relevant matters consistently across jurisdictions and with their management teams and workforce in general. Establishing an ongoing Workplace Consultative Group to deal with these matters collaboratively is a good option and one that is recommended by some regulators.

For smaller businesses, it is how they manage the expectations of multiple jurisdictions in a practical and effective way within their businesses and resources. The focus should be on keeping it simple in process, active in education and communication and having access to professional support to do that and deal fairly and quickly with any issues that arise.

The positive duties also extend consultation obligations to contractors and their employees, so you need to include them as well.

Our Practice Leader, Peter Maguire, is available to facilitate discussions with your management group or your Safety or Consultative Committee to work through these questions and tailor the right approach for your business and your people.  If you would like to know more about this, please let us know via the Contact Form below.

Note: this article was originally published in Timber Trader Magazine.

 

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

Sham contracting in the spotlight

Sham contracting in the spotlight

Latest News & Events

Sham contracting in the spotlight

money changing hands

Every few years, the subject of sham contracting gets regulators’ attention and those regulators often collaborate with each other across jurisdictions. The Australian Taxation Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman have jointly announced that they are doing just that. And the Albanese Government changed the rules on what organisations need to be doing to ensure that they don’t engage in sham contracting. How does that change things?

What is sham contracting?

According to the Fair Work Ombudsman, “sham contracting happens when an employer misrepresents to a worker that an employment relationship is an independent contracting arrangement when the employer doesn’t reasonably believe this. This might be done in an attempt to avoid paying entitlements such as super, leave and workers’ compensation. This practice undermines or ignores workers’ rights and disadvantages honest businesses. Those who engage in sham contracting can face court-ordered penalties.”

It might also be when a worker proposes engagement as an independent contractor for the purposes of avoiding taxation liabilities. 

From recklessness to reasonableness

As of February 2024, the legal test for defending a sham contracting claim was updated to a “reasonableness” test. To avoid penalties, the principal in the relationship must now prove that, at the time of the arrangement, they reasonably believed the worker was a contractor. This replaced the previous, more lenient “recklessness” test, making it harder for employers to defend against claims.

So now there is a much higher onus on businesses to properly consider whether an arrangement is really that of an independent contractor rather than that of an employee.

Income matching and reporting

The Taxable Payments Reporting System requires businesses who engage contractors providing services in certain industries to report those payments to the Australian Taxation Office.. The nominated industries are:

  • building and construction
  • cleaning
  • courier and road freight
  • information technology
  • security, investigation or surveillance.

If the revenue you receive from these services is 10% or more of total revenue, you are required to lodge a Total Payment Annual Report (TPAR) with the ATO.

If contracting businesses are generating a significant proportion of their revenue from one source, there will likely be a suspicion that it is a sham contracting arrangement. 

So what if you are found to be sham contracting

Under the Fair Work Act, courts can impose penalties against businesses or individuals for sham contracting. The maximum penalties for each contravention are:

  • $19,800 for individuals
  • $99,000 for businesses with fewer than 15 employees
  • for businesses with 15 or more employees, the greater of $495,000 or three times the underpayment amount.

Apart from the penalties imposed by the Fair Work Act, businesses who incorrectly treat an employee as an independent contractor risk other penalties and charges, including:

  • PAYG withholding penalty for failing to deduct tax from worker payments and send it to the ATO
  • super guarantee charge (SGC), which is more than the super that would have been paid if the worker was classified correctly. SGC consists of:
    • super guarantee shortfall amount
    • nominal interest
    • an administration fee
  • additional super guarantee penalties including the Part 7 penalty amount of up to 200% of the SGC under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.

A few pointers

  1. The fact that someone has an ABN doesn’t make them an independent contractor.
  2. If they are paid by the hour for doing work that an employee could do and there is an ongoing arrangement for the worker to continue to do that work (not just come in and do a finite job like servicing a machine or building a s structure), there would be exposure to a suspicion of sham contracting.
  3. The fact that it might be the worker who proposes the contracting arrangement does not relieve the principal of the legal responsibility to ensure that they reasonably believe the relationship to be a genuine independent contracting arrangement.
  4. The fact that a worker might have multiple ongoing contracts with different businesses does not necessarily mean that a valid contracting arrangement exists if they are personally performing all of the work under those contracts on a regular and systematic basis. They might actually be found to have multiple part-time jobs as employees. There has been a decision in the Fair Work Commission to that effect.
  5. If, other than the way that someone is paid ie by invoice rather than through payroll, the worker has the characteristics of an employee, the odds are that they really should be an employee
  6. Regardless of whether someone is engaged as a contractor if they are just or principally supplying their labour, they will likely be deemed to be an employee for the purpose of the superannuation guarantee. 

If you engage contractors, you should be assessing the relationships for genuineness in the legal context and there should be contracts for service which clearly set out the nature of the relationship and provide evidence of the worker’s genuine agreement to that contractual arrangement. Need a hand?  Send us a message through the “Tell us what you need help with” form below.

Note: much of the content in this blog is sourced from the websites of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office.

 

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 that redundancy genuine?

Is that redundancy genuine?

Latest News & Events

Is that redundancy genuine?

money changing hands

Have you had situations where it has been suggested to you that the best way to deal with “a problem employee” is to make them redundant? Unfortunately, we get asked that question too often. Did you know that there are specific criteria that have to be met for a redundancy to be considered legally genuine? A recent FWC decision illustrates just what this all means.   

The Background

When the Fair Work Act 2009 was developed under then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon Julia Gillard, a key reform that the government wanted to make was to discourage what had become common corporate practice of restructuring to remove unwanted employees rather than affording them the natural justice that they would be entitled to under a performance or behavioural management process.

This resulted in the legal recognition of sham redundancy as a concept and the prescription of specific grounds that had to be satisfied for a redundancy to be genuine, namely:

  • That the role in question is not going to be performed by anyone and
  • That the organisation genuinely considers redeployment opportunities and
  • That the consultation provisions in any applicable industrial instrument (award or enterprise agreement) are complied with.

If all three of those conditions are satisfied, an employee would be excluded from making an unfair dismissal claim.

The case in point

CEVA Logistics initiated a restructure which resulted in an operations supervisor’s position becoming redundant and the occupant of that position was retrenched. The Fair Work Commission found that it was not a genuine redundancy despite accepting that the position was not required for genuine operational reasons. Here is why:

  • Redeployment: there were 18 vacancies in the organisation (3 of which were in her home state) yet she wasn’t advised of any of them
  • Consultation: this includes an obligation to properly consult the employee about the effects of the redundancy (ie on her employment) and measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the change on her and the Commission found that the employer failed to do this.

It appears that the organisation did not put forward any of the vacancies as redeployment options in the belief that none of them were suitable because, in their view, the surplus employee didn’t have the skills required and/or would have to take a payout and/or would have to relocate interstate. The Commissioner rejected all of those as grounds for not advising the employee of the available vacancies and genuinely consulting her about them. The employee was awarded $7,439 plus superannuation.

What is redundancy?

Firstly, when we talk about redundancy, it is important to recognise that it is the position that becomes redundant, not the employee. A position becomes redundant when an employer:

  • doesn’t require a particular job to be done by anyone or
  • becomes insolvent or bankrupt

It can happen on transmission of a business to a new owner or due to a business downturn or as a result of the introduction of new technology or for a number of other reasons but the common factor is that the job is gone.

That doesn’t mean that you cannot reassign duties performed by the redundant position to other roles – you can as long as it is for the right reasons, it is fair on the other employee who is picking up the extra duties and that can all be demonstrated if it is challenged.

What is redeployment?

S389(2) of the Fair Work Act states:

“A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within:

  (a)   the employer’s enterprise; or

  (b)   the enterprise of an associated entity of the employee.”

This means that an employer must actively explore the question of whether any suitable redeployment options might potentially exist for any surplus employees.

They then have to consult the surplus employees about the availability and suitability of any such options. That means not just telling them about the options but ensuring that they properly informed about the roles, the duties, the remuneration, the hours, the location and any other relevant factors.

It also isn’t just a question of what vacancies might exist at the time although, as illustrated in this case, that is an important element. It could also be that opportunities might arise through retraining or through reductions in hours or changes in work locations or insourcing contracted work or in other ways.

Where multiple roles are being made redundant, there might be employees who are happy to take a voluntary redundancy which can make decisions easier.

Where there are substantive changes that would affect an employee’s hours of work and/or remuneration, any redeployment would need to be agreed with the employee.

It is only when it has been determined that no suitable redeployment options exist that a decision should be made that termination should occur.

Of course, there are situations where the end result is apparent from the start but there is still a process to work through.

What is consultation?

As is graphically illustrated in this case, consultation involves a lot more than just telling someone that their role is abolished, that there are no redeployment options and so they will be retrenched.

All awards and enterprise agreements have mandatory consultation clauses in them which require employers to advise employees and their representatives in writing and have discussions with them and their representatives about any major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees including:

  • The nature of the changes
  • The introduction of the changes
  • Their likely effect on employees
  • Measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of the changes on employees
  • Any other matters likely to affect employees.

Significant effects include:

  • Termination of employment, or
  • Major changes in the composition, operation or size of the employer’s workforce or the skills required, or
  • Loss of, or reduction in, job or promotion opportunities, or
  • Loss of, or reduction in, job tenure, or
  • Alteration of hours of work, or
  • The need for employees to be restrained or transferred to other work or locations, or
  • Job restructuring.

Effective and legally valid consultation processes are essential elements of any change management program and failures can create vulnerabilities in multiple jurisdictions as has really been demonstrated in a couple of cases where:

  • SafeWork NSW intervened in a change management process at University of Technology Sydney on the basis that the process was potentially giving rise to psychosocial risks for workers (poor change management is one of the prescribed psychosocial hazards) and
  • ANZ Bank found themselves in a dispute in the Fair Work Commission over alleged failure to comply with required consultation processes oin announced downsizing process.

So organisations really do need to have clear change management processes that expressly deal with their legal obligations across all relevant jurisdictions.

Tips for small businesses

In the CEVA Logistics case, the FWC did comment that the HR team should have been capable of assisting the employer to meet their obligations re the rules on redundancy.

So where does that leave SMBs who don’t have their own dedicated HR team or don’t have internal resources who have the necessary knowledge and experience in compliance requirements and effective change management practices?

You need to have someone to provide that for you whether that be a HR consultancy or an employment lawyer.

You also need to have an open and transparent relationship with our employees because, if people trust you, you will be much better equipped to have the hard conversations that go with difficult change decisions. Ideally, your external advisor should be able to support you with that too.

And if the issue is really about an employee’s performance or behaviour, deal with it on that basis rather than trying to disguise it as a redundancy that isn’t real.

Need a hand with managing change or redundancies or workplace relationships? Tell us what you need via the Contact Form below.

 

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

Does that termination pass the 3 tents test?

Does that termination pass the 3 tents test?

Latest News & Events

Does that termination pass the 3 tents test?

money changing hands
One of the most challenging things that a small business owner might have to do from time to time is to dismiss and employee for misconduct. Often, that decision is tempered by a fear of the employee making an unfair dismissal claim. What if there was a simple test that might help you to sort through whether dismissal is the right course of action. Here is one that we use.

Having worked in the field of HR fort over 40 years, there have been hundreds of occasions when I have had to terminate employees or support employers through the process of terminating employees for misconduct.

In doing so, we need to consider fairness from a couple of angles:

  • Substantive fairness which requires that the action taken would not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable and
  • Procedural fairness which is about ensuring that due process has been followed and the principles of natural justice have been complied with

A process that I use to consider the substantive fairness of an action is to assess them against the “3 tents” namely:

  • Content: what actually happened, ensuring that you are aware of the facts of events that have given rise to consideration of action?
  • Intent: was the action or dereliction of duty or other offence deliberate or was it due to a misunderstanding or a heat of the moment thing and is it in or out of character for the individual concerned?
  • Extent: what was the effect of the action or dereliction of duty or other offence on the business and/or employees and/or other parties?

Of course there are the procedural elements to attend to as well but ensuring that the action that you propose will stand up to the “3 tents test” is a good start. One other piece of advice – if you have a situation where you think you might have to terminate an employee for misconduct, get professional advice before you go further. You might also need to stand them down with pay while you do that and work through the process. If you need a hand, give us a call on 0438 533 311. 

 

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

Are workplace changes for the better?

Are workplace changes for the better?

Latest News & Events

Are workplace changes for the better?

money changing hands
A newly released report from the Australian Human Resources Institute tells us that most employers are mostly positive about many of the significant changes to workplace laws that have been introduced in the past few years. Does that come as something of a surprise?  

 

About this report

The Australian Human Resources Institute has just released a report titled “Recent Employment Legislation: What do Employers Think?” . It sets out the findings of a study that it conducted this year via a survey of 600 employers and 6 subsequent focus groups relative to reforms introduced through the Albanese Government’s  Fair Work Legislation (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Amendment Act 2022 and the Closing Loopholes Acts of 2023 and 2024.

The reforms covered included:

  1. Respect at work
  2. Flexible working
  3. Fixed-term contracts
  4. Casual employment
  5. The right to disconnect
  6. Prohibition of pay secrecy clauses
  7. Wage theft.

What were the key findings 

Interestingly, much of the commentary centred on the perception that having these things legislated forced organisations to review their policies and practices. In other words, they did it because it was a compliance issue.

And then, when they did review them, they found that there were some real positives. For example:

  •  58% said that legislating the right to disconnect had increased employee engagement and productivity levels
  • 77% said they employ casual staff and 68% said they would be more likely to engage casual staff as a result of the changes to the rules on casual employment
  • 71% of employers reported a positive impact from legislation of the limitations on fixed term contracts resulting in more permanent employment.
  • 75% of employers support the addition of reproductive health as a protected attribute in anti-discrimination laws 
  • 48% of employers say they would like to see the right to request flexible working arrangements extended to all employees (not just those currently protected such as parents and carers and those with a disability or those over 55 or those experiencing domestic violence)

Our thoughts

Based on those findings, you would have to conclude that the Albanese Government’s reforms in these areas have been overdue and necessary and have been good for employee engagement and productivity.

The proportion of employers who say they support extending “the right” to request a flexible working arrangement to all employees does seem to be at odds with all of the media talk about employers implementing back to the office mandates.

It is also interesting in the context of the Victorian Government’s proposed legislation to mandate a right to work from home for 2 days per week on Victorian employers and the pushback that there has been against that legislation. 

Then there is the recent case of Westpac refusing a request for a flexible working arrangement and losing the argument in the Fair Work Commission.

Flexible working is here to stay and so we need to adapt……to the degree that is practicable and sometimes it won’t be.

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