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

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

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