Employment law for employers

Changes affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawEmployment law for employersChanges affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–3 minutes

On 1 July 2016 three (3) significant changes to employment law came into effect:

  • the unfair dismissal high income threshold increased;
  • the maximum compensation for unfair dismissal claims increased; and
  • the minimum wage increased.

Employers need to be aware of these changes as they impact the rights of both current and future employees of a business.

Increase to high income threshold

An employee is protected from unfair dismissal under section 382 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) if:

  • the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and
  • either:
    • a modern award covers the person;
    • an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment; or
    • the employee’s earnings are less than the high income threshold.

The definition of “high income threshold” in section 333 of the Act, which relies on the calculation method stated in the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), was updated on 1 July 2016 from $136,700 to $138,900.  This means that more employees will have access to the unfair dismissal remedy.

Increase to maximum compensation

If it is satisfied that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the Fair Work Commission (FWC), under section 390 of the Act, can order either:

  • that an employee be reinstated; or
  • if reinstatement is inappropriate, that the employee be compensated.

Pursuant to section 392(5) of the Act, the amount of compensation ordered must not exceed the “compensation cap”.  On 1 July 2016 this cap increased from $68,350 to $69,450.  This increase means that employees who have been unfairly dismissed may now be better compensated when reinstatement is not appropriate.

Increase of minimum wage

Section 282 of the Act provides for the Minimum Wage Panel to set and vary minimum wages for “national system employees” (employees not covered by an award or enterprise agreement).  On 1 July 2016 the national minimum wage was increased to $672.70 per 38 hour working week ($17.70 per hour).  This increase benefits the nation’s lowest paid employees, but was strongly opposed by many employers, especially retailers, who argued that the increase may cause them to cut their employee’s hours or prevent them from hiring new staff.

Takeaways for employers

When drafting employment contracts, employers must ensure that all national system employees receive the increased minimum wage, and must be conscious that employees who earn under the new high income threshold will have access to the unfair dismissal remedy.  Employers must also be aware of their liability to pay increased compensation if an employee is unfairly dismissed.

Links and further references

Legislation

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)

Further information about employment law

If you are an employer who needs assistance drafting employment contracts or advice on another area of employment law, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about employment law

  • Superannuation changes – are you prepared?

    Superannuation changes – are you prepared?

    The Australian Government has introduced significant changes to superannuation, with gradual increases in the compulsory superannuation rate set to impact both employers and employees. Starting in July 2013, employers will be required to contribute more to their employees’ superannuation funds, with the rate rising to 12% by 2019. This article breaks down the key changes,…

    Read more …

  • Employee Share Scheme (ESS) offering through options

    Employee Share Scheme (ESS) offering through options

    Offering employees shares or options to acquire securities can be a great way to reward, retain, and entice them. Discover the different types of employee share schemes, their associated tax implications, the reporting and withholding obligations employers must satisfy.

    Read more …

  • Federal Court implies a new duty in employment contracts

    Federal Court implies a new duty in employment contracts

    The landmark Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32 ruling has changed the way employers must manage their employees. Find out how this Federal Court decision could affect your business and what you need to do to ensure compliance.

    Read more …

  • Employee or contractor – impact on intellectual property

    Employee or contractor – impact on intellectual property

    This article explores the legal implications of determining whether an individual is an employee or contractor. Learn how a multi-factor test can help to identify the correct status, and understand the potential impact on intellectual property.

    Read more …

  • Social media policies are a necessity for large companies – Fair Work Australia

    Social media policies are a necessity for large companies – Fair Work Australia

    The case of Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Limited [2011] FWA 8444 highlights the importance of having a clear social media policy. Mr Stutsel’s dismissal for making derogatory comments on Facebook was deemed unfair, as the company lacked a formal policy on social media use. This case serves as a reminder that businesses should implement…

    Read more …

  • What is a Twitter follower worth?

    What is a Twitter follower worth?

    This legal case could have far-reaching implications for the value of social media followers and connections. Find out what this dispute between Phonedog and Noah Kravitz could mean for employers and employees in the future.

    Read more …

  • Can employers be liable for employees’ criminal actions?

    Can employers be liable for employees’ criminal actions?

    This article summarises the tests used to determine if an employer is liable for an employee’s dishonest conduct, with reference to Ffrench V Sestili; Sestili v Triton Underwriting Insurance Agency P/L [2007] SASC 241. Recommendations are provided to help employers reduce potential liability.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend