Changes to entry level award classifications

Changes to entry level award classifications

Latest News & Events

Changes to entry level award classifications

money changing hands

The Fair Work Commission has undertaken a review of entry level classifications in 45 modern awards and that is resulting in some key changes.

What’s changing?

The Fair Work Commission has decided that, where entry level provisions in modern awards had pay rates below the level of the federal minimum wage, they can only apply for a limited period while a new employee with no industry skills and experience learns their new job. 

The length of the limited period varies between awards but is most commonly 3 months and none allow for more than 6 months. 

Awards which just have changes to introductory level rules

These awards have variations from 1 January 2025:

  • Airline Ground Staff Award
  • Amusement Award
  • Animal and Veterinary Services Award
  • Australian Government Award
  • Dry Cleaning and Laundry Award
  • Fitness Award
  • Food and Beverage Manufacturing Award
  • Funeral Award
  • Graphic Arts and Printing Award
  • Joinery Award
  • Live Performance Award
  • Manufacturing Award
  • Marine Tourism and Charter Vessels Award
  • Meat Award
  • Pest Control Award
  • Port Authorities Award
  • Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated Industries Award
  • Timber Award
  • Travelling Shows Award
  • Vehicle Award

Plus the changes in the Horticulture Award take effect from 1 April 2025

Awards which have changes to minimum rates and introductory level rules

These awards have variations from 1 January 2025:

  • Air Pilots Award
  •  Aquaculture Industry Award
  • Architects Award
  • Business Equipment Award
  • Cement, Lime and Quarrying Award
  • Children’s Services Award
  • Concrete Products Award
  • Cottin Ginning Award
  • Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award
  • Rail Industry Award
  • Seafood Processing Award
  • Sugar Industry Award
  • Wine Industry Award
  • Wool Storage, Sampling and Testing Award

Plus the changes in the Pastoral Award take effect from 1 April 2025.

Enterprise Agreements

If an organisation has an enterprise agreement in place, they still have to pay new employees at least the new introductory rates that apply under modern awards from 1 January 2025 or 1 April 2025 as applicable. 

How can we help?

If you need assistance with interpreting  awards and the effects of these changes in award provisions for your business, we can help.

Just give us on 1300 108 488 to arrange your free first consultation.

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

6 Ellesmere Ave, Croydon Victoria 3136

1300 108 488

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

Latest News & Events

Offshore worker’s unfair dismissal claim allowed

example flexible working arrangement

Are you using offshore workers in the belief that they are not covered by Australia’s Fair Work system? Well, you might be right….but then again, you might not.

What has happened?

Deputy President Slevin at the Fair Work Commission has determined that an offshore worker in the Philippines deemed by her contract to be an independent contractor is actually an Australian National System Employee with access to our unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

The case of Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd involves a worker engaged to do paralegal work for a Queensland law firm which terminated her contract due to alleged breach of contract which was disputed by the worker and resulted in her lodging an unfair dismissal claim.

That led to a jurisdictional hearing as the respondent alleged (among other things) that she wasn’t an employee and so couldn’t be dismissed.

Here is the decision.

Why did the FWC make that determination?

In his decision, the Deputy President goes into quite a bit of detail on the terms set out in the written contract between the parties as well as the duties and working arrangements for the applicant and relevant case law.

One problem for the respondent was that, in parts, the contract referred to the other party as an employee or had provisions which would typically be associated with an employment arrangement.

The Deputy President also made note that the worker was more likely to be an employee because she worked inside the respondent’s business rather than providing services to the business from outside it. That perspective might be a bit of a red flag for the validity of many nominal independent contracting arrangements, whether local or overseas.

Reference was also made to KPIs that were set for the worker and to potential award coverage under the Legal Services Award 2020 with commentary that what the worker was getting paid ($18 per hour) was significantly below the award rate for the classification of work that she was performing as he saw it. Another red flag perhaps given the current federal government’s legislative changes to protect “employee-like workers” and provide the Fair Work Commission with the power to deal with complaints of unfair contractual terms from independent contractors.

The Deputy President concluded: “For the foregoing reasons I find that the relationship was an employment relationship. Accordingly, the Respondent’s objection is dismissed.” I would note that the foregoing reasoning was a lot more extensive than what I have set out above but hopefully my summary gives you the gist of the factors in play. 

What does it mean?

One of the things that has been repeatedly emphasised in the extraordinary range and number of changes that we are experiencing in our workplace relations system is that the focus going forward will be on the true nature of the relationship rather than just what is written in a contract

Another is to provide some level of security and protection and complaints jurisdictions for what have been called “employee-like workers”, those who might not be classified as National System employees because they are nominally not employees.

While we might not have expected that this would extend to offshore workers, this decision brings a whole new rage of considerations to bear in entering into offshore engagement arrangements.

One thing that is very clear from this case is that the poor drafting of the contract between the parties was a significant factor in the Deputy President’s considerations – he literally pulled it to pieces.

So any business entering into independent contractor arrangements whether locally or overseas needs to get professionally drafted contracts that don’t leave any doubt as to the relationship between the parties.

Another issue to consider which has been on our mind. Is one of the potential outcomes of a complaint to the Fair Work Commission re unfair contract terms by an independent contractor, a determination that the worker is a National System employee rather than a contractor? We reckon that might be on the cards. What do you think?

If you need any assistance with this or any other employment or related matter, please contact us on 1300 108 488 or by emailing us at enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

CONTACT US

Ridgeline Human Resources Pty Ltd
ABN : 24 091 644 094

enquiries@ridgelinehr.com.au

6 Ellesmere Ave, Croydon Victoria 3136

1300 108 488

PARTNER LINKS

TELL US WHAT YOU NEED HELP WITH