02 Jun HR LAW NEWSLETTER – MAY 2026
In the May 2026 HR Law Newsletter, we provide an overview of key workplace law developments, including the Fair Work Commission’s triennial review of protected action ballot agents, updates to the Senate inquiry into the Right to Work from Home Bill, and the latest developments in the road transport contractual chain order relating to fuel cost pressures.
We also highlight upcoming legislative changes impacting employers, together with a Fair Work Commission decision reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness and consistency in disciplinary action.
1.
Ballot Agent Triennial Review – Decision
The Fair Work Commission (“FWC”) has completed its review of approved eligible protected action ballot agents under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the FW Act”), as required by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth).
Under s 468A(4) of the FW Act, the FWC must review each approved eligible protected action ballot agent at least every three (3) years to ensure the agent continues to meet the “fit and proper person” requirements for approval
Decision:
The following agents have been approved for the next three (3) years:
•
RMK Investments Pty Ltd/ Coastal Collaborations Pty Ltd at trustee for Hadley Family Trust T/A Australian Election Company (Australian Election Company);
•
Crowd Faction Pty Limited;
•
Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS2;
•
Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd;
•
IR Balloting Pty Ltd T/A IR BLOTS;
•
TrueVote Pty Ltd; and
•
Vero Engagement & voting Solutions Pty Ltd T/A Vero Voting.
Why the triennial review matters:
Protected action ballots are a critical step in lawful industrial action during enterprise bargaining. This review process reinforces the FWC’s oversight of ballot integrity and ensures that approved agents continue to meet the standards introduced under the Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms.
Employers should be aware of this process and consider whether they wish to make submissions in relation to any ballot agent currently under review.
Employers are encouraged to check that they are engaging approved protected ballot agents.
If you would like to review the Decision, please find it here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc930.pdf
2.
Senate Inquiry into the WFH Bill – Extension Granted for Reporting
Our February 2026 Newsletter, detailed that the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee was conducting an inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025, with reporting due 26 March 2026.
We note that an extension has been granted, with reporting now due on 27 August 2026.
For more information on the Senate inquiry, visit the link below:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/WFH2025
3.
Upcoming Amended Legislation Enforcement Dates
We remind employers of the following upcoming dates regarding the enforcement of amendment legislation:
4.
Road Transport Contractual Chain Order (Fuel Crisis) – Public Consultation Now Open
Following the determination that the application by the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, seeking accelerated relief for road transport operators and drivers facing unprecedented fuel price increases, was an “emergency application”, a proposed order was drafted by the Expert Panel on 20 April.
Following an engagement conference on 1 May 2026 and a review hearing on 25 May 2026, proposed changes were made to the Order on 29 May 2026.
Public consultation on the proposed changes is now open. Workers, business and other key stakeholders are invited to make a submission by 4:00pm AEST Thursday 4 June 2026.
To view the proposed changes please see here: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/sites/ms2026-1/ms2026-1-draft-fuel-cost-recovery-order-fwc-2026-05-29.pdf
To view the Expert Panel’s Statement regarding the proposed changes please see here: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwcfb131.pdf
The Fair Work Commission (“FWC”) has reinforced that employers may face significant consequences where disciplinary decisions are made hastily or applied inconsistently. The recent decision in Cheryl Sazdanoff v Doc Pty Limited [2026] FWC 1128 highlights the risks that arise when employers fail to recognise established workplace practices and inconsistently enforce policies. It underscores the importance of ensuring disciplinary responses are fair, consistent, and proportionate to the conduct in question.
FACTS
•
Ms Cheryl Sazdanoff (“the Applicant”) commenced employment with Doc Pty Limited (“the Respondent”) in February 2011 as a Pharmacy Assistant and had over 14 years’ service.
•
On 22 September 2025, the Respondent accused the Applicant of stealing confectionery items on several occasions, relying on CCTV footage which was rushed through and froze upon playing. The Applicant denied the allegations and following the accusation paid for the items she had allegedly stolen.
•
On 23 September 2025, the Applicant attended a meeting and was dismissed on the basis of serious misconduct for theft of confectionery items. The Applicant stated that during this meeting she felt overwhelmed, distressed and intimidated, and as a result could not explain her position properly
•
The Applicant acknowledged consuming confectionary items during shifts but maintained that it was common practice for employees to consume stock and pay for it later.
•
The CCTV footage did not demonstrate concealment or an intention to steal, and in at least one instance the Applicant paid for the item on the same day.
•
Other employees engaged in similar conduct but were not summarily dismissed, instead they received warnings.
•
The Applicant filed an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the FW Act claiming that her termination was disproportionate to the accusation and that it was inconsistent with treatment of other staff for the same conduct.
LAW
Pursuant to s 387 of the FW Act, to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must have regard to specific circumstances, including whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal based on an Applicant’s capacity or conduct, whether the Applicant was notified of that reason and if the Applicant had an opportunity to respond. In addition, the FWC must consider any other matters the FWC considers relevant.
OUTCOME
Commissioner Sloan found that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed because the Respondent failed to prove that the Applicant acted with deliberate intent to steal the confectionery in question.
Commissioner Sloan noted several factors in reaching this conclusion:
•
the CCTV footage presented by the Respondent did not show any efforts by the Applicant to hide or disguise her actions;
•
absence of receipts or proof of payment alone was not sufficient to demonstrate an intention to steal;
•
the practice of consuming snacks during a shift and paying for them later was commonplace among staff and there was no evidence of a formal policy requiring immediate payment;
•
other employees who engaged in similar conduct were generally given warnings, whereas the Applicant was summarily dismissed. Commissioner Sloan stated, “It would be unfair and inconsistent to single out one employee for disciplinary action [for] conduct that reflected an accepted workplace norm”; and
•
the Applicant’s unblemished fourteen (14) years of service.
Accordingly, the FWC ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $23,960 plus superannuation, the equivalent to twenty-two (22) weeks’ pay, in compensation.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR EMPLOYERS
This decision reiterates the importance of ensuring that employer’s approach disciplinary action in a fair and consistent manner to ensure procedural fairness is upheld. In particular, employers should ensure that allegations are properly substantiated and employees are aware of and trained on relevant policies.
To read the full case, see the link below:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc1128.pdf
If you require advice on unfair dismissal claims or initiating disciplinary action, please contact info@hrlaw.com.au or one of our experienced solicitors.
The Plumbing and Fire Sprinklers Award 2020 and the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020 (“the Awards”) alter the pay scale and meaning of redundancy.
Under these Awards, redundancy means “a situation where an employee ceases to be employed by an employer to whom this award applies, other than for reasons of misconduct or refusal of duty.” This means that, subject to the terms of the relevant Award, employees may be entitled to redundancy pay where their employment ends for reasons other than misconduct or refusal of duty, which can include certain resignation scenarios. The pay scales in the Awards are currently as follows:
If you require advice or assistance in relation to any of the matters discussed in this newsletter, please contact HR Law at info@hrlaw.com.au and one of our experienced solicitors will assist.
Are you following us on our HR Law LinkedIn page? For updates on new laws, cases and inquiries as they happen follow us here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/hr-law/
No Comments