Workplace Watch – 2 July 2025: new year, new numbers, QLD government introduces legislation establishing Mining & Resources Coroner, case updates

Welcome to the latest edition of the KHQ Workplace Watch. In this edition we cover:

• Some of the key new numbers for your workforce applicable from 1 July 2025;
• The latest in law reform, legislation introduced establishing the new QLD Mining & Resources Coroner; and
• The latest case updates, including a highly anticipated High Court ruling on the administration of the CFMEU.

NEW YEAR, NEW NUMBERS

It is the start of a new financial year, and with that comes some new key numbers:

• National Minimum Wage: $24.95 per hour.
• Increase to minimum wages in modern awards: 3.5%.
• High income threshold: $183,100.
• Superannuation guarantee: 12.00%.
• Maximum super contributions base: $62,500 per quarter.

For more information, see the:

• Annual Wage Review decision here, with a summary here.
• new minimum rates of pay in modern awards here.
• information on the historical high-income threshold here.
• super guarantee information here.

LAW REFORM

Legislation introduced to establish Queensland Mining & Resources Coroner

The Queensland Government has introduced the Coroners (Mining and Resources Coroner) Amendment Bill 2025 to the Queensland Parliament. As reported in our Workplace Watch of 12 May 2025, the legislation establishes a newly-created role of Mining & Resources Coroner to investigate fatalities and make safety recommendations on Queensland’s mine, quarry, petroleum and gas sites.

According to the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, the “aim of the Bill is to provide more timely answers and certainty to families that mining related deaths will be investigated and an inquiry conducted to determine the cause of the death, prevent similar deaths happening in the future and to keep mining companies accountable.”

The Coroners (Mining and Resources Coroner) Amendment Bill 2025 and its Explanatory Notes can be found here and here.

CASE UPDATES

High Court upholds CFMEU administration

The High Court has handed down its highly anticipated decision in Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth Of Australia & Ors [2025] HCA 25, answering the questions of law put forward by the CFMEU Construction and General Division’s former Queensland-Northern Territory branch secretary Michael Ravbar and Assistant Secretary Kane Lowth.

The CFMEU’s Construction and General Division and its branches were placed into administration in August 2024 using the new laws, with Fair Work Commission General Manager appointing Mark Irving KC as the Administrator.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024. That legislation permitted the making of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024, a determination that it was in the public interest for the CFMEU’s Construction and General Division to be placed under administration.

Chief Justice Gageler and Justices Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones unanimously held that Part 2A of Chapter 11 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), section 177A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024 (Cth) were not invalid on any of the grounds put forward by the plaintiffs, each providing their own reasons.

The six questions of law put to the High Court related to the following four issues:

1. that the impugned legislative provisions are unsupported by a head of Commonwealth legislative power;
2. that the impugned legislative provisions and/or the Scheme infringe the implied freedom of political communication;
3. that the impugned legislative provisions infringe Ch III of the Constitution; and
4. that the impugned legislative provisions effect an “acquisition of property” within the meaning of s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution otherwise than on just terms.

The High Court answered each question of law in the negative.

The High Court’s decision in Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth Of Australia & Ors [2025] HCA 25 can be found here and the case summary can be found here.

First voting request order made under Secure Jobs reforms

In a significant ruling, the FWC has granted an application by Sydney Trains and NSW Trains for a voting request order, the first of its kind under the amendments introduced by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 that came into effect in June 2023.

Following those amendments, section 180A(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provides that an employer must not request that employees approve a multi-enterprise agreement by voting for it unless union bargaining representative has provided the employer with written agreement to the making of the request or a voting request order permits the employer to make the request.

In this matter, the ETU had not provided their written agreement, whereas the other six union bargaining representatives had.

Section 240B of the FW Act imposes an obligation on the FWC to make a voting request order if it is satisfied that the failure of a union to provide written agreement to the employees being requested to approve the proposed agreement was “unreasonable in the circumstances” and that making the request “would not be inconsistent with or undermine good faith bargaining for the enterprise agreement”.

In granting the application for the voting request order, President Hatcher, Vice President Gibian and Commissioner Matheson gave consideration to the requirements under section 240B, and made various findings about the bargaining and the amendments the ETU was seeking during bargaining:

“[55] Assessment of whether the refusal of the ETU to agree to Sydney Trains and NSW Trains was unreasonable requires consideration of all of the circumstances of the case. We are satisfied that the ETU’s failure to agree to Sydney Trains and NSW Trains requesting employees to approve the proposed agreement was unreasonable. A number of considerations have informed that conclusion. First, the circumstances in which the ETU has failed to agree to employees being requested to approve the proposed agreement include that the bargaining process has been lengthy, complex and heavily contested. In part as a result of the efforts of the Commission, in principle agreement has been reached in relation to virtually all of the matters which were at issue between the parties. The remaining matters which are not agreed with the ETU are limited to the wording of the Section 5 clause and the Trades Uplift Claim. It is also relevant that the period during which protected industrial action has been will expire on 1 July 2025. Although the period during which the bargaining has been ongoing will not necessarily mean that it is unreasonable for an employee organisation not to agree to employees being requested to approve an agreement, those circumstances are relevant to our assessment.

[56] Second, the reasons given by the ETU for refusing to agree to employees being requested to approve the agreement included its insistence that alterations be made to the clause dealing with the Section 5 issue subject of the recommendation by the Commission. We have set out the amendments to the clause sought by the ETU in paragraph [12] above. In our opinion, the amendments sought by the ETU do not change the effect of the provision and are trivial… It is unreasonable for the ETU to refuse to agree to the proposed agreement being put to the vote as a result of an insistence of immaterial changes to one draft clause. 

[57] Third, the ETU refused to agree to employees being requested to approve the proposed agreement because it wishes to pursue negotiations in relation to the Trades Uplift Claim. The ETU accepts that it first raised the Trades Uplift Claim on 2 June 2025, that is, more than 12 months after the bargaining commenced. The fact that the ETU refused to agree to employees being requested to vote on the proposed agreement because it wishes to pursue a new claim not advanced in so many months of bargaining suggests that the refusal is unreasonable… In our opinion, it was unreasonable for the ETU to refuse to agree to employees being requested to approve the proposed agreement in order to allow it to explore a claim it had just raised. Having considered the whole of the circumstances, we are satisfied that the ETU’s refusal to agree to employees being requested to approve the proposed agreement is unreasonable.

[58] Fourth, the effect of the ETU’s position would be to deprive the employees of Sydney Trains and NSW Trains of an early opportunity to vote upon a highly beneficial outcome to the bargaining. A comprehensive package of wages and conditions have been agreed between Sydney Trains and NSW Trains and the unions representative the majority of employees who will be covered by the agreement if it is approved… Given the matters sought to be pursued by the ETU, we regard its failure to agree to the request to put the proposed agreement to employees to be unreasonable. 

[59] We are also satisfied that Sydney Trains and NSW Trains making a request for employees to approve the proposed agreement would not be inconsistent with or undermine good faith bargaining for the enterprise agreement. The only submission advanced by the ETU as to why making such a request would be inconsistent with or undermine good faith bargaining is that the ETU was excluded from bargaining and not provided with relevant information. We have addressed, and rejected, those arguments in dealing with the applications for bargaining orders. Those matters therefore do not justify a conclusion that making a request for employees to approve the proposed agreement would be inconsistent with or undermine good faith bargaining.”

The FWC’s decision in Applications by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; Application by Sydney Trains and NSW Trains [2025] FWCFB 117 can be found here.

Suspension of midwives’ industrial action

The FWC has published reasons for suspending planned industrial action to be taken by members of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) in February 2025.

The ANMF and Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd were bargaining for an enterprise agreement to apply to nursing and midwifery employees who work in the 12 private hospitals operated by Healthscope in New South Wales.

Healthscope applied to the FWC in February 2025 under section 424(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an order to suspend protected industrial action endangering life after the ANMF issued a notice on 17 February 2025 that its members would stop work for a period of 24 hours at Newcastle Private Hospital. Healthscope’s application sought to suspend the protected industrial action “insofar as any such action would be taken by a member of the ANMF who is a birth-suite competent midwife who works within the birthing suite at NPH.”

Commissioner Ryan reviewed the authorities dealing with section 421 and commented at [35]: ‘… if I find that the planned industrial action is conduct that puts a person’s physical or mental state at risk of material detriment, or that materially hinders or prevents improvement in a person’s poor physical or mental state, this may constitute conduct that endangers personal safety or health, or welfare, of the population or a part of the population within the meaning of s.424(1)(c). If that is the case, I must suspend or terminate the planned industrial action.’

In suspending the action, Commissioner Ryan found at [44] that:

“It is patently obvious that any delay in the access to antenatal support services and/or a birthing suite for spontaneous deliveries in these circumstances will endanger the welfare of those expectant mothers, or worse, the personal health and safety of them and/or their babies.”

Commissioner Ryan’s decision in Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd T/A Healthscope v Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation [2025] FWC 1591 can be found here.

Federal Court clarifies the meaning of “associated working time” in higher education award

In a decision that will be of particular interest to those in the higher education industry, the Federal Court has cancelled a compliance notice issued by the Fair Work Ombudsman to Torrens University in respect of a casual lecturer and, in doing so, has considered the proper construction of the phrase “associated working time” which appears in many higher education and post-secondary education awards.

The notice concerned an alleged contravention of the Higher Education Awards (the Higher Education Industry – Academic Staff – Award 2010 and the Higher Education Industry – Academic Staff – Award 2020) by the University on the basis that the lecturer did not receive payment for marking duties, other than by being paid the casual lecturing rate in the Awards, which incorporates “associated working time”.

Torrens University had considered that those hours of work were part of “associated working time”, whereas the Fair Work Ombudsman was of the view that “associated working time” needed to be directly related to the delivery of a particular lecture or tutorial and, accordingly, that the lecturer’s later marking work that related to assessments covering topics delivered across various lectures or tutorials was subject to a separate marking hourly rate.

Justice Halley did not accept the Fair Work Ombudsman’s construction for a number of reasons, and ultimately concluded that “associated working time” extended to “all marking undertaken by a casual lecturer of assessments in subjects taught by that lecturer” (at [25]).

Read the decision in Torrens University Australia Limited v Fair Work Ombudsman [2025] FCA 634 here.

Fair Work Commission dismisses application for unfair termination remedy

Mr Wong is the sole director of Maxma Transportation, a transportation company which had a contract with SAL National, a lighting wholesaler. After the contract was terminated, Maxma Transportation applied for an unfair termination remedy as now provided for in s536LU of the Fair Work Act, following the Closing Loopholes No. 2 amendments. SAL opposed the application on the grounds that Mr Wong was not a regulated road transport contractor as required by those provisions.

The Fair Work Commission considered the statutory test of whether a person is a regulated road transport contractor within the meaning of the Fair Work Act and found that Mr Wong was not performing all, or a significant majority, of the work to be performed under the relevant services contract, as was required for Mr Wong to fall within the definition of a “regulated road transport contractor”. He was not therefore protected from unfair termination as defined in s536LE of the Fair Work Act, and his application failed on that basis.

In reaching that conclusion, Deputy President Saunders rejected an argument by Mr Wong that the relevant issue was who “delivered, or was responsible for the delivery of” Maxima Transport’s contract with SAL, pointing to the focus in the Fair Work Act on the performance of the relevant work, not who was ultimately responsible for it.

The decision in Ho Wong v Sal National Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1701 can be found here.

This article was originally written by George Smart, James Allen and Adam Lambert.

Want the KHQ Workplace Watch delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.