News & Events

Consultation with employees - Why, what and when?

Submitted By Firm: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Contact(s): John Tuck


Ruth Nocka (Special Counsel), Amanda Cameron (Lawyer)

Date Published: 2/27/2014

Article Type:

Share This:

The obligation on employers to consult with employees arises in a number of contexts. It is an obligation that often doesn’t get the focus that it requires.

However, the decision in Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited (No.2) [2013] FCCA 1696 (28 October 2013) reminds employers that consultation is not something that they can approach as a mere formality in the decision making process. A failure to consult can result in substantial civil penalties being imposed. In that case, Judge Raphael of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ordered Qantas to pay $41,250 in penalties for breaching its consultation obligations and for failing to provide information required for effective consultation.

In this In Brief, we examine when employers are required to consult with their employees, what consultation means and the costs of non-compliance.

When does the obligation to consult arise?

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the obligation to consult arises in the following main situations:

  1. when considering making a major workplace change that will have a significant effect on employees covered by a modern award or an enterprise agreement;
  2. in connection with termination of employment; and
  3. when implementing changes that affect employees on unpaid parental leave.

Consultation obligations also arise under workplace health and safety legislation (although these requirements are not covered in this In Brief).

Major workplace change

All enterprise agreements and modern awards must include consultation terms that require employers to consult employees about major workplace changes that are likely to have a significant effect on their employment. The parties to an enterprise agreement can agree to their own consultation term; otherwise, the model consultation term in the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)[1] will be taken to be included in the enterprise agreement. The model consultation term is in similar terms to that contained in modern awards.

Consultation under an award or agreement usually requires an employer to notify its employees of a decision to introduce any major workplace change as soon as practicable after the decision is made; and to discuss the changes with employees and their representatives. The discussion should cover the introduction of the change, the effect the change is likely to have on employees and the measures being taken to mitigate any adverse effect of the change on employees. There is also an obligation to provide information to employees about the proposed change in writing, and to give “prompt and genuine consideration to matters raised” by employees or their representatives.

For these purposes, major workplace change includes:

  1. undertaking a restructure;
  2. making positions redundant;
  3. making changes to rosters;
  4. making changes to working hours;
  5. transferring employees to other work or other work locations; and
  6. requiring employees to undertake retraining.

There may be additional obligations for an employer depending on the specific terms of any consultation term the parties have included in an enterprise agreement (if they have not adopted the model term).

A failure to comply with the obligation to consult in either an award or enterprise agreement can expose an employer to penalties.

Termination of employment

There are a number of provisions in the FW Act which require employers to consult with an employee prior to terminating their employment:

(a) Where an employer has decided to make 15 or more employees redundant, section 531 requires that the employer must notify any relevant union/unions and consult with those unions on the following issues:

  1. measures to avert or minimise the proposed dismissals; and
  2. measures (such as finding alternative employment) to mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed dismissals.

This opportunity to consult must be given as soon as practicable after the employer’s decision to implement the redundancies, and prior to any dismissals taking effect.

(b) Employers are required to comply with the consultation obligations imposed by an applicable modern award or enterprise agreement, in order to rely upon the exemption from unfair dismissal claims in the case of a “genuine redundancy” (under section 389 of the FW Act).

Employees on unpaid parental leave

Section 83 of the FW Act imposes obligations on employers to consult with employees on unpaid parental leave, in relation to any changes that will have a significant effect on the status, pay or location of the position held by the employee prior to taking that leave.

What should an employer do to discharge its consultation obligations?

There is no hard and fast rule as to what it means to consult for the purposes of the legislative obligations discussed above. Consultation requirements can vary according to the particular circumstances, and the wording of applicable award or agreement provisions.

What is clear is that the consultation must be genuine. An employer may be penalised if it is apparent that the employer treated consultation as a mere formality in the overall decision making process, and had made a final decision before consulting employees or did not intend to take on board any of the employees’ feedback.

If the consultation process is challenged, internal documents created by the employer can be reviewed to determine the genuineness of the consultation.

Generally speaking, consultation requires an employer to discuss the introduction of changes that will affect the workforce or the particular employee, and to consider the views of employees before making a final decision. This does not mean employers have to give employees and their representatives a right of veto or ask for their consent to the proposed change.

To discharge the obligation to engage in “genuine consultation” an employer should:

  1. engage in consultation early on;
  2. provide employees and their representatives with a real opportunity to provide their views and opinions on the proposed decision;
  3. remain open to suggestions;
  4. provide comprehensive information to employees about the proposed decision and make sure it is in an accessible format;
  5. respond to any requests for information from employees – although this does not mean the employer is required to provide confidential or commercially sensitive information;
  6. keep records of conversations involving consultation;
  7. review any suggestions or opinions made by employees or their representatives;
  8. if deciding to implement the original decision which was the subject of consultation, explain the rationale for this to employees and their representatives; and
  9. consider seeking legal advice if unsure of the extent of the employer’s obligations.

Why is consultation important?

Employers need to properly consider their consultation obligations, because a failure to meet these obligations can result in a range of potential adverse consequences including:

  1. substantial legal costs;
  2. a greater exposure to successful unfair dismissal claims where employees have been made redundant, because the “genuine redundancy” defence will not be available; and
  3. proceedings for breach of an applicable award/enterprise agreement, and the imposition of substantial civil penalties as highlighted by the recent Qantas decision.

The cost of non-compliance

Qantas decision

In Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited (No.2) [2013] FCCA 1696, Qantas was ordered to pay a total of $41,250 in penalties for breaching its consultation obligations and for failing to provide information that was required for consultation.

The case arose from Qantas’ announcement that it was changing its maintenance procedures by introducing a Maintenance on Demand (MoD) system for its Boeing 737-800 and Airbus A330 fleet. The introduction of MoD resulted in fewer checks being performed on these aircraft by licenced aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs), and led to the positions of 30 LAMEs being made redundant.

In the substantive proceedings,[2] the Court had found that:

  1. Qantas breached its consultation obligations under the applicable workplace determination, by not genuinely consulting with the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) in relation to its decision to make the 30 LAMEs redundant. The Court found that Qantas made a definite decision to make the positions of 30 LAMEs redundant prior to consultation occurring. This was evident from a letter Qantas sent to the ALAEA prior to consultation occurring, informing the union of its decision to introduce t MoD and stating “as a result of this decision, approximately 30 positions will become redundant.” Qantas used the consultation process to determine who would volunteer to leave employment and to inform the employees of their rights and opportunities in this respect. However, the Court considered that the redundancies were a “foregone conclusion”, regardless of any consultation process, so there was no opportunity for the union to negotiate over the number of redundancies.
  2. Qantas also breached its obligation under the workplace determination to provide certain information which had been requested by the ALAEA as part of the consultation process.

These breaches constituted contraventions of section 280 of the FW Act, with each contravention attracting a maximum penalty (at the time the breaches occurred) of $33,000 for a corporation.

In the penalty decision, the Court imposed upon Qantas penalties of:

  1. $24,750 for failing to genuinely consult; and
  2. $16,500 for failing to provide information required for consultation.

According to the Court, the relatively high penalty for failing to consult was justified for a number of reasons, including the need for deterrence and the fact that the breach involved senior management and a “deliberate action by a large corporation”.

Finally, employers should note that the maximum penalties for breaches of this kind have recently been increased to $10,200 for individuals and $51,000 for corporations – a further reason to ensure compliance with statutory, award and agreement consultation requirements.

[1] Schedule 2.3, see here.

[2] Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited [2013] FCCA 5992.

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel