11 Nov HR LAW NEWSLETTER – OCTOBER 2025
In this October HR Law Newsletter, we discuss new legislative updates relating to superannuation payments and paid parental leave, as well as the new requirements regarding fixed-term contracts. We also celebrate the one-year anniversary of our firm’s expansion of the Gold Coast Office.
Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025
The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 (“the Bill’) has passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate. To view the Amendment’s homepage, click here.
In short, the Bill redesigns the current Superannuation Guarantee Charge to “deliver significant consequences for employers that repeatedly fail to pay their workers or let super go unpaid for long periods of time, and it will make sure that workers are accurately compensated for lost earnings if their employer is late in paying their contributions”.
If you require advice on these proposed changes, contact us at info@hrlaw.com.au.
Paid Parental Leave – Baby Priya’s Bill
The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 (“Baby Priya’s Bill”) has also passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate. To view the Amendment’s homepage, click here.
Baby Priya’s Bill introduces a new principle that, unless employers and employees have expressly agreed otherwise, employer-funded paid parental leave (“PPL”) must not be cancelled in the event a child is stillborn or dies soon after birth. Baby Priya’s Bill is named after a premature baby girl who passed away six weeks after her birth, whose mother was denied her employer-funded PPL.
Under both the FW Act and the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, an employee remains entitled to unpaid parental leave and government-funded PPL if their child is stillborn or dies soon after birth. However, employer-funded PPL, negotiated between employers and employees, was not subject to these requirements. Accordingly, Baby Priya’s Bill brings employer-funded PPL in line with government-funded PPL.
This change will be reflected with the introduction of a new section 333X in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which will remove inconsistencies by expressly stating that employers cannot cancel PPL when:
- a child is stillborn, and the worker would have been entitled to employer-funded PPL if the child had been born alive; or
- a child dies while the worker is on employer-funded PPL, or during a period of time the employee could have accessed employer-funded PPL.
This would mean that an employer would not be permitted to, because of a stillbirth or death, refuse to approve an employee’s leave, refuse to pay the period of leave or cancel any part of that leave, including after the leave has commenced, unless the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment:
- expressly allow an employer to refuse or cancel employer-funded paid parental leave because of stillbirth or death of an employee’s child; or
- expressly provide that the employee is not entitled to employer-funded paid parental leave because of stillbirth or death of the employee’s child (previously expressly provided for in the employee’s terms and conditions); or
- expressly provide that the employee is entitled to other leave that is expressly available in the event of stillbirth or the death of an employee’s child (note: standard unpaid parental leave and compassionate leave is not ‘other leave’).
However, this exception would not apply if an employer has unilaterally varied an employee’s existing terms and conditions of employment after the new section commences to allow for refusal or cancellation.
If you require advice on these proposed changes, contact us at info@hrlaw.com.au.
New Fixed Term Contract Information
Limitations on the use of fixed-term contracts have been implemented since 6 December 2023 and include things like time limitations, renewal limitations and consecutive contract limitations.
As of 1 November 2025, the following changes have been made to additional exceptions:
- Temporary additional exceptions will no longer apply to fixed-term contracts entered into on or after 1 November 2025 for the higher education sector and employees at public hospitals. However, exceptions may still apply if applicable Modern Awards allow for it in certain circumstances.
- Exceptions have been extended until 1 November 2026 for the charities and not-for-profit sector and the medical or health research sector. However, fixed-term contracts entered into on 1 November 2025 are now subject to thresholds on employer’s total annual revenue for the exceptions to apply.
- Ongoing exceptions have been granted for the organised sport sector and high-performance sport sector.
If you require advise on these changes, contact us at info@hrlaw.com.au.
Please see the updated Fixed Term Contract Information Statement here:
Case Brief – Hayley Lord v Millet Hospitality Geelong Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2740
In the recent decision of Hayley Lord v Millet Hospitality Geelong Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2740, the Fair Work Commission found that a small business owner’s (“the Respondent”) use of ChatGPT to write a redundancy email failed “to adhere to basic standards of decency” and did not constitute a genuine redundancy.
Genuine redundancy as per s389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is satisfied if:
- The employee’s role is no longer needed due to changes in operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise;
- The consultation processes for redundancy as per applicable Modern Awards or Enterprise Agreements has been followed; and
- There are no reasonable redeployment opportunities in another role at the employer’s enterprise.
Commissioner Redford agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant’s role was no longer needed due to the business’ financial difficulties, however, noted that the applicable consultation process as per clause 38 of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 was not adhered to.
The Respondent sent an email generated by ChatGPT to the Applicant advising the Applicant that their Housekeeping Supervisor role would be made redundant. The Respondent argued that the email was not definite and instead “as a non-English speaker, he sought to express himself with the aid of ‘ChatGPT’, which may not have captured his true meaning”. Commissioner Redford did not accept this and instead remained firm that the Respondent’s language “indicated finality to the decision” communicated via email. Instead, the Respondent should have communicated that he was considering making the Applicant’s role redundant and listened to her feedback on the potential decision.
Due to the absence of consultation between the Applicant and Respondent, the redundancy was not considered a “genuine redundancy” by Commissioner Redford. Consequentially, Commissioner Redford did not determine whether redeployment was reasonable. However, he did comment on the lack of detail for the redeployment roles listed by the Respondent and the breakdown of communication initiated by the Applicant with regard to this. If the consultation between the Applicant and Respondent about the redundancy had occurred, this may have affected if reasonable redeployment was possible.
Commissioner Redford also highlighted that the Respondent’s use of ChatGPT to send an email one evening after work to the Applicant lacked common decency. Due to the seriousness of the matter, the Respondent should have told the Applicant face-to-face. Furthermore, Commissioner Redford noted that the Applicant had worked for the Respondent for five (5) years, adding to the emphasis on the lack of common decency exhibited by the Respondent. The lack of common decency was a key determining factor in the Applicant’s unfair dismissal as it was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. Other factors such as the failure to consult and lack of notification before the decision was made were also determinative of the unfair dismissal ruling.
This case serves as a critical reminder for businesses and companies, of all sizes, that:
- Employers must understand and properly discharge their legal obligations with regard to an employee’s potential redundancy;
- Surrounding circumstances such as how long an employee has worked for the employer’s enterprise and how employers inform an employee about their potential redundancy are considered; and
- The use of ChatGPT as a tool, however, is not an alternative to seeking professional legal advice.
To access the full case, click here.
HR Law has extensive experience in partnering with clients during the redundancy process. If you have any questions or need advice on redundancy from one of our experienced lawyers, please contact our office at info@hrlaw.com.au.
HR Law Gold Coast Office – One Year Anniversary
HR Law is pleased to announce that we recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of the official opening of our Gold Coast office. During this time, we have partnered with many local Gold Coast and Northern Rivers businesses to assist them in managing their workforce.
HR Law is also thrilled to be appointed to the Preferred Supplier Arrangement panel for Legal Services for the City of Gold Coast Council. This is testament to our skills, experience and expertise for providing legal services in employment law.
If you are a Gold Coast or Northern Rivers business and would like to discuss your employment law matters, please contact Victoria Mitchell, our Gold Coast Partner on v.mitchell@hrlaw.com.au. We are your local employment law firm.
We look forward to our continued success and working with our valued clients.
Need Help?
If you are not already connected with us and you would like to keep up to date with topical employment law matters, please follow us on LinkedIn and subscribe to our email updates.
We also post articles regularly on our website www.hrlaw.com.au.
If you or your colleagues would like to be added to our mailing list, please email us at info@hrlaw.com.au.
The content of this newsletter is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
No Comments