Fair Work and Safe Work crossover?

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.