Recent developments in managing employees in Australia

We are pleased to continue our Employment Law Update series, reporting on recent legislative and case developments that have provided employers with guidance in navigating complex workplace challenges.

In this edition, we discuss developments that employers should keep in mind to ensure legal compliance and best practice. These developments include taking a national approach to sexual harassment, whether pandemic work from home arrangements can be altered or revoked, WHS obligations in redundancy and change management processes, changes to incident notification duties under Model WHS laws, a review of industrial relations developments to watch in 2026, and the introduction of a new statutory tort of discrimination in Singapore.

Download full publication here [PDF 8.74MB]

Taking a national approach to sexual harassment: Why employers should consider moving faster than the law

In brief

• Legislative changes in Queensland: Since 1 March 2025, persons conducting a business or undertaking in Queensland have been required to prepare and implement a written sexual harassment prevention plan under the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld).
• Legislative changes in Victoria: Victoria’s recently enacted Restricting Non‑disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025 (Vic) (NDA Act) will restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements and non-disclosure clauses in agreements relating to workplace sexual harassment matters. The NDA Act is expected to commence operation during 2026.

Five years on: Can pandemic work from home arrangements be altered or revoked?

In brief

• For some employers, the tension between flexible work arrangements and operational necessity has become one of the defining employment law challenges of the post-pandemic era.
• Since our last article and podcast about navigating flexible work requests under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). the direction of recent decisions suggests that workplace legislative protections do not guarantee indefinite flexibility.
• Chandler v Westpac [2025] FWC 3115 demonstrates that employers must show role-specific, evidence-based impacts to refuse remote work. It confirms that generic policy rationales are insufficient and individualised assessment with clear documentation is required.
• In Papaemanouil v Special Broadcasting Service Corporation [2025] FedCFamC2G 2150, the Court rejected the suggestion that pandemic-era working arrangements created ongoing entitlements, and considered a work from home request in the context of disability and whether the employee could perform the inherent requirements of the role.
• Johnson v PaperCut [2026] FWC 178 suggests hybrid attendance mandates are a lawful and reasonable direction when contracts link remote work to policy, following genuine consultation, with clear expectations, and documented warnings.

Is your organisational change psychologically safe?

In brief

• Over the last six months, the NSW safety regulator, SafeWork NSW, has actively intervened in organisational change processes in response to alleged contraventions of WHS laws, in particular, around managing psychosocial safety.
• Recent regulatory attention has been focused on the tertiary sector, where SafeWork NSW has:
  • issued a prohibition notice to the University of Technology, Sydney, ordering it to pause staff reductions until it had taken steps to minimise the psychological impact on staff; and
  • issued an improvement notice to Macquarie University directing it to consult, so far as is reasonably practicable, with workers affected or potentially affected by the proposed workplace changes.
• In both cases, workers raised complaints with the National Tertiary Education Industry Union about the respective change processes.
• We anticipate that recent amendments to Part 5, Division 7A of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) will provide a new pathway for workers, health and safety representatives, and unions to raise disputes about "WHS matters" directly with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, rather than raising such matters with SafeWork NSW.

"Same Job Same Pay": From concept to execution

In brief

• "Same Job Same Pay" has moved from concept to execution. Just over one year on from the introduction of the 'Closing Loopholes' reforms, the Fair Work Commission has granted 92 regulated labour hire arrangement orders, across various sectors, including mining, aviation, meat processing and warehousing.
• As more applications and orders are made, and decisions are challenged, employers will gain clearer insights into the application of the exemption criteria that will allow for strategic workforce planning.
• Ms Susan Booth, former Fair Work Commissioner, has been engaged to undertake an independent review of the Same Job Same Pay reforms, and is engaging with stakeholders across industry, unions and the legal profession and is expected to provide practical recommendations to improve clarity and implementation in July 2026.

IR developments to watch in 2026

In brief

• The Commission is actively reviewing a number of modern awards with respect to part-time employment provisions, work value considerations (which will affect classifications/pay rates) and work from home provisions.
• A new (broadened) delegates' rights terms have been included in all modern awards, following a Full Federal Court decision that found previous terms inserted by the FWC were too restrictive.
• The Victorian Labour Hire Authority has enhanced powers to address unlawful conduct in the labour hire and construction industry.
• The Commission made its first community of interest determination in the context of the Net Zero Economy Authority's just transition scheme, with more applications expected in 2026.

You've been notified: Safe Work Australia expands model incident notification duties

In brief

• On 5 December 2025, Safe Work Australia published significant amendments to the notification requirements under the Model Work Health and Safety Act (Model WHS Act), introduced by the Model Work Health and Safety Legislation Amendment (Incident Notification) 2025.
• These amendments:
  • expand the notification obligations of persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) by introducing new notification duties for extended worker absences, violent incidents (including sexual assault) and work-related suicides or attempted suicides; and
  • clarify and extend the definitions of 'serious injury or illness' and 'dangerous incident'.
• While the Model WHS Law has been updated, these reforms will not take legal effect in a state or territory until they have been adopted into local WHS laws.
• Safe Work Australia has published a detailed "Notifiable incidents, extended absences and suicides handbook" to assist PCBUs in understanding the new provisions.

A new era for employee rights: Singapore's statutory tort of discrimination

In brief

• Singapore's Parliament has passed its first workplace anti-discrimination legislation, fundamentally reshaping how workplace discrimination will be regulated. Marking a landmark shift from Singapore's previous guidelines-based regime anchored in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, the enactment of the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (WFA) and the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Act 2025 has significantly broadened access to legal recourse for employees who face discriminatory employment decisions.
• The WFA prohibits employment decisions that adversely affect an individual on the ground of a protected characteristic across the employment lifecycle, including during recruitment, in-employment and termination. The WF(DR)A establishes a structured dispute resolution framework, where claims can be brought in either the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) (for claim amounts up to SGD 250,000) or the General Division of the High Court (for claim amounts exceeding SGD 250,000), after completion of mandatory mediation.
• The legislation is expected to come into force in 2027 and signals a stronger regulatory stance against workplace discrimination, with increased scrutiny of employer hiring and employment practices. The framework nevertheless incorporates procedural safeguards to mitigate against floodgates of vexatious claims, with the Courts being empowered to strike out frivolous and vexatious claims and make adverse cost orders against such claimants. This reflects Singapore’s characteristically calibrated approach to balancing employee access to justice with protections against unmeritorious litigation.
• The legislation represents a novel approach to discrimination. Unlike the position in Australia, the Singapore approach does not impose a comparator requirement and does not cover indirect discrimination. Further, it includes express exceptions to allow employers to discriminate in favour of Singapore citizens and permanent resident employees, as well as seniors – notwithstanding Singapore's traditional rejection of special measures and insistence on meritocracy.
• As discrimination complaints have historically been channelled informally to government bodies such as the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, we expect to see an increase in claims being pursued through formal legal processes from 2027 and beyond, once the legislation comes into force.

The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.

Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.

Other authors: Karen Mitra, Counsel; Emma Vautin, Counsel; Eshani Mendis, Senior Associate; Ariane Kea, Associate; Molly Pearse, Junior Associate; Greta Sweeney, Junior Associate; Georgina Adair, Junior Associate; Lily Pang, Junior Associate; Laura Kokolis, Graduate; Molly Fitzgerald, Graduate and Amy Ridley Summer Clerk.