Award Review Principles Case 2025 [2025] NSWIRComm 1089 (17 October 2025)

Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW), s 71

Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), s 33C

Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW), s 52

Health Services Act 1997 (NSW), s 116A

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), ss 3, 10, 17, 19, 146, 162

Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 86

State Wage Case 2024 (No 4) (2024) NSWIRComm 25; (2024) 337 IR 182

Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW), s 13

National Union of Workers v Employers' Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Vic) (Redundancy Case) (2004) 129 IR 155; [2004] AIRC 287

Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 (1998) 85 IR 38; [1998] NSWIRComm 661

Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2015] FWC 6555

Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 344

Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 1612

Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 1738

Re Plain language drafting of modern awards [2022] FWCFB 177

Re Storage Services - General - Award (Re Redundancy Case - Supplementary Decision) (2004) 134 IR 57; [2004] AIRC 564

Secretary of the Ministry of Health v Health Services Union NSW [2025] NSWIRComm 17

Secure Employment Test Case 2006 (2006) 150 IR 1; [2006] NSWIRComm 38

State Part-Time Work Case (1998) 78 IR 172; [1998] NSWIRComm 142

State Wage Case 2024 (No 4) (2024) 337 IR 182; [2024] NSWIRComm 25

Superannuation Case 2025 (No 4) [2025] NSWIRComm 1071

Hon Justice Richard Beasley, Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding, (April 2025)

H Pararajasingham (Industrial Relations Secretary, Transport Secretary, Health Secretary, Fire and Rescue NSW, Commissioner of Police, Secretary of the Department of Education)

1. Section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) requires the Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) to review awards every three years "to modernise awards, consolidate awards relating to the same industry and to rescind obsolete awards".
2. The Principles for Review of Awards under s 19 (Principles) that guide the conduct of award reviews were made in 1998.[1] Having heard from interested parties we are satisfied that they need to be updated. With this decision we publish draft Principles and invite the parties to provide submissions as to their content.

1. Award reviews are by their nature Commission-led proceedings. The Commission identifies one or more awards to be considered together and then asks the parties why certain changes should not be made to update language, remove redundant provisions, standardise conditions or consolidate awards where appropriate, and to rescind awards that no longer apply to anyone. Through a process of conciliation and consideration of submissions the Commission determines an outcome and varies the awards in question. That they have in the past sometimes been conducted at the same time as a s 17 application made by a party to vary an award does not change the character of the award review itself.
2. A purpose of a review is to promote productivity and efficiency by simplifying awards and removing uncertainty.[2] Even though such improvements may not be readily quantified by way of cost savings, they nevertheless could be taken into account in later proceedings that consider increases in remuneration.[3] However, a review is not itself a vehicle for parties to pursue substantive improvements in conditions, including increases in remuneration.
3. In the process of conducting a review the need for substantive changes might be identified. However, an award review, being Commission-led and largely administrative in nature, is not the appropriate mechanism to determine such changes which require a hearing with evidence led by the parties.
4. That is not to say that an award review cannot commence a process to bring about necessary substantive changes to ensure an award is modern and up-to-date, including the removal of gender undervaluation. The Principles we propose to make will require the Commission, when conducting an award review, to consider whether to make one or more recommendations identifying substantive issues that need to be addressed. If the parties do not make appropriate applications to address the identified issues, the Commission would then consider acting on its own initiative.
5. In the proceedings before us the parties identified, correctly, that engaging in a rigorous s 19 process is labour-intensive. While the Commission will lead the process, it will expect a high level of cooperation and participation from parties to seek, via conciliation, consensus on appropriate changes. Where substantial consolidation or harmonisation is being sought, there may be a need for a large number of conciliation conferences. Significant resources will be required to provide the Commission with the proper assistance required in such cases. We note in that regard the evidence led as to the resources required to date by the Health Services Union (HSU) and the Health Secretary, who have been working together for more than 3 years towards a major consolidation of health awards and determinations.
6. It is in the interests of the NSW Government that awards are modernised and consolidated and that the Commission gets the assistance it needs to conduct such an exercise properly and in a manner that enables the parties to fully engage with the proceedings. To that end we recommend that Government give consideration to creating a fund that parties who are involved in significant reviews are able to access to fund the necessary additional resources.

Content of Principles - Summary of our conclusions

1. Much has changed since 1998 when the Commission set the current Principles that guide the award review process. At that time state awards applied to the private sector, and most were minimum rates awards. Now, the only awards are those that apply to the NSW public service, government sector and local government, and they are almost all paid rates awards. In addition, the objects of the Industrial Relations Act have been amended. These changes result in a need to reconsider the existing Principles.
2. For the reasons that follow we have determined that there ought to be a series of changes to the existing Principles that reflect the following points.

(1) Awards are reviewed pursuant to s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act to update language and remove redundant provisions, to standardise conditions and consolidate awards where appropriate and to rescind awards that no longer apply to anyone.

(2) An award review should not reduce existing conditions of employment.

(3) Award reviews are not a vehicle for parties to pursue substantive improvements in conditions, other than:

(a) by consent;

(b) to the extent necessary to ensure that they reflect test case and statutory minima, including the entitlements extended to non-national system employees under Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth); or

(c) to increase wages and allowances in minimum rates awards to ensure that overall remuneration for particular classification(s) is not less than that set by the national minimum wage or a federal award for comparable work.

(4) Where there is more than one award that applies to employees who perform the same or similar work for the same employer in the same part of the public service or government sector and who are covered by the same union(s) ("like employees"), the Commission will consider whether the awards being reviewed should be consolidated and/or core conditions can be standardised in order to improve productivity and efficiency. If so, the Commission should then consider whether that can be done in the review proceedings or alternatively, because this measure would require a substantive and contested change to existing conditions for employees covered by one or more awards, it ought to be the subject of a statement or recommendation to the effect that this measure should be addressed in subsequent proceedings.

(5) Statutory determinations setting terms and conditions of employment that apply to employees covered by an award being reviewed will be considered by the Commission as part of the review. To the extent that an award does not deal with a subject matter that is addressed by a determination the Commission will consider if there is a good reason why that term ought not be included in the award. The Commission will otherwise consider determinations to ensure that there is no inconsistency or ambiguity that arises because of the interaction between a determination and an award.

(6) Unless there is good reason not to do so, awards should be reordered to follow a standard index format that will be attached to the new Principles.

(7) The Commission will make changes necessary to improve ease of understanding such as removing ambiguity and imprecise drafting, and to that end will have regard to the plain language drafting guidelines of the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

(8) Amendments to awards are to be made to the extent necessary to ensure that they are not less beneficial than minimum entitlements provided by Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act. Alternatively, a term is to be included that makes it an award obligation to provide specific entitlements that are at least equal to those obligations.

(9) Where the Commission forms the view, having conducted an award review, that for an award or awards to be properly modernised the Commission needs to consider substantive changes which are contested, the Commission will express that view in the decision that determines the award review to enable the issue to be properly considered in subsequent arbitral proceedings. The Commission may in addition make recommendations that address those issues. In particular, the Commission member conducting the review should consider whether to make a recommendation that the award or awards may need or do need to be examined to eliminate gender-based undervaluation.

(10) Where the Commission considers it appropriate the Commission will at the end of a review identify whether changes have been made to the award that promote productivity and efficiency and whether their significance is such that the Commission recommends that they ought to be taken into account in determining a future increase in remuneration.

Award review process - To be addressed by a Practice Note

(11) While an award review is Commission-led, parties are expected to cooperate with a review process.

(12) A s 19 review will not ordinarily be dealt with as part of the same proceedings as a substantive application to vary or make a new award.

(13) The Commission will commence an award review on its own motion, pursuant to rule 3.2 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2022, once every three years.

(14) This will be done by the Industrial Registrar giving notice to all parties recorded on the party card of an award or awards, pursuant to rule 6.7(5) of the Rules.

(15) The Commission will ask the parties whether the awards identified in the notice should be considered together, whether there are any other awards that apply to like employees that ought to be considered in the same review, and a list of issues the parties consider ought to be dealt with as part of the review.

(16) The employer(s) will be asked to provide copies of any statutory determinations that set conditions of employment for any employees covered by an award being reviewed.

(17) Having determined the awards to be reviewed, the Commission will provide the parties with a draft list of issues to be addressed in the review and discuss with the parties in conciliation the most efficient means to conduct the review. The list of issues may be amended during the course of the review.

(18) During the s 19 review process the Commission will ordinarily and in the order and manner that is considered most appropriate to the particular review:

(a) have the parties confirm their view as to the issues they consider ought to be considered in the review;

(b) have the parties identify any issue that the parties say involves substantive changes that ought to be addressed by a recommendation made by the Commission;

(c) seek the parties' views as to the extent to which any of the awards in question can be consolidated with each other and/or core conditions can be standardised in order to improve productivity and efficiency; and

(d) work through the identified issues to be addressed in conciliation, during which the Commission may propose changes to the award(s).

(19) Before making or varying awards or making any recommendation(s) in light of the review, the Commission will provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on proposed draft awards and draft recommendations.

(20) Where there are contested positions the Commission may conduct a short hearing before determining the outcome of the review.

(21) It is not expected that evidence would ordinarily be required, as an award review is by its nature an exercise that focuses on the terms of the awards being reviewed having regard to what the Commission understands to be the nature of the industry, the history of the award, and any relevant test case standards or minimum conditions. Evidence may be required where there is a dispute as to the factual basis for determining whether an award is obsolete, or otherwise where a fact or facts in issue must be established to enable the Commission to exercise its powers under s 19.

(22) The Commission member is to identify at the end of a review:

(a) contested issues involving substantive changes to terms and conditions of employment that the Commission considers need to be addressed for the award to be properly modernised and which were not addressed by the review, so they can be properly considered in subsequent arbitral proceedings;

(b) whether changes have been made to the award that promote productivity and efficiency and whether the Commission recommends such changes be taken into account in determining any future increase in remuneration; and

(c) whether the award needs to be examined to consider whether it contains gender-based undervaluation.

(23) There is no need for the Principles to restate the legislative provisions nor to deal with procedural matters that can be addressed by a Practice Note, which is provided in draft form for the parties to comment on at the same time as this decision.

(24) The Principles should list the current test case standards and where possible test case standard clauses. This will be finalised following further submissions from the parties.

(25) An award is obsolete and ought to be rescinded if it does not set conditions that apply to any employees and it is not expected do so in the foreseeable future.

1. In these proceedings, the Commission has acted on its own initiative. On 17 April 2025, an initial Summons to Show Cause was issued which invited parties to show cause why:

(1) Having regard to the current Principles for Review of Awards set out at Annexure F of Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 [1998] NSWIRComm 661; (1998) 85 IR 38 (the Award Review Principles), the Commission should not:

(a) retain the Award Review Principles; and

(b) review the form and content of the Award Review Principles generally, including by considering:

(i) introducing an obligation for plain english drafting;

(ii) having award clauses follow a consistent order and format;

(iii) whether there ought to be a presumption in favour of consolidating awards and/or standardising conditions that apply to employees employed by the same section or part of the public sector;

(iv) the need for the Principles to reflect or accommodate the operation of Chapter 2A of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW);

(v) the procedure by which award review proceedings should be conciliated;

(vi) whether award reviews should be conducted by examining awards concurrently in batches focusing on groups of awards that affect related employees; and

(vii) whether and how any productivity improvements arising from award reviews and modernisation should be recognised.

1. On 16 June 2025, the Vice President's chambers emailed the parties requesting them to address two additional matters in their submissions:

"Firstly, consideration should be given to whether or to what extent the Commission is able to undertake and complete the award modernisation process contemplated by Recommendations 28 and 29 of the Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding published in April 2025 (the Beasley Report). ... The Full Bench would be assisted by the parties' submissions on the scope for undertaking and completing such a process under s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), both with respect to the NSW Health awards and for the broader purpose of reviewing the Commission's awards generally.

Secondly, please note that Chapter 6 Part 6-3 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) extends some National Employment Standards to non-national system employees, including State and Local Government employees. ...The Full Bench would be assisted by submissions addressing whether or in what manner the Award Review Principles ought to deal with awards that contain terms and conditions that are inconsistent with one or more of these National Employment Standards."

Historical background and purpose of the Award Review Principles

1. The Full Bench set principles to be applied to award review proceedings in Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 (1998 State Decision).[4] Those principles have not been reviewed until these proceedings.
2. The Full Bench in the 1998 State Decision interpreted s 19 in the context of the rest of Ch 2 of the Industrial Relations Act and distinguished it from proceedings to make or vary awards under ss 10 and 17:

"Applications brought by award parties in order to meet the needs of employers and employees in the circumstances of a particular industry or enterprise are pursued and determined in accordance with the provisions of the 1996 Act, particularly s 10, together with other applicable legislation and applicable principles, including those established in State Wage Case decisions, State decisions and test case decisions. By way of contrast, the process established by s 19 has a stated and limited purpose - namely 'to modernise awards, to consolidate awards relating to the same industry and to rescind obsolete awards'. In s 19(3) and (4), matters which the Commission must take into account in giving effect to that purpose are specified.

Care must be taken, it seems to us, to ensure that those two processes are not confused."[5]

1. The Full Bench interpreted the word "modernise" to be understood as "bringing the award up to date and making it contemporary" and "[ensuring] that the awards are made consistent with the current statutory framework".[6] The Full Bench however considered that modernisation in the context of an award review under s 19 does not include inserting conditions into awards which the Commission might consider a "modern" award ought to contain.[7]
2. Much has changed since s 19 was drafted and the Principles were set. There were at that time a much greater number of State awards, a large number of which applied to the private sector. Many of those private sector awards were minimum rates awards. There were several "splinter" awards, such as wages adjustment awards, which dealt with select matters and operated to vary a main award.
3. The first matter to note about the 1998 State Decision is that the Principles that were made were largely agreed as between the Labor Council of NSW (as Unions NSW was then known) and the Crown, with any areas of disagreement principally arising from private sector employers and specifically the NSW Farmers Federation. It was perhaps for that reason that the Principles for the most part do little more than reflect and, in large part, repeat the statutory provisions.[8]
4. The second matter to note is the context in which the Principles were being determined. It was handed down in December 1998, at which point there was limited time left to complete the statutory exercise of reviewing every State award within 3 years of the commencement of the Industrial Relations Act in September 1996. It was in that context that the Full Bench needed to consider how reviews could be undertaken and concluded within the prescribed timeframe. In a manner that would assist reviews being commenced and conducted quickly, it determined that a review could be initiated by the parties and commenced at the same time as an application to make a new award or vary an existing award. Given the likelihood that a review would be considered at the same time as an application by a party to alter existing conditions it was no doubt important for the Bench to give careful consideration to the extent to which the Commission would consider substantive changes to an Award as a result of a s 19 review and whether and how it would have regard to the evidence of the parties. In particular the Commission appears to have been concerned to ensure that the parties not have an expectation that a s 19 review could be a vehicle to seek substantive change to "modernise" an award and by such means avoid the constraints of the then Wage Fixing Principles. It is against that background that we understand the Full Bench said what it did about the Commission not changing conditions even if appropriate to modernise an award as part of a s 19 review.

Criticism of the existing Award Review Principles

1. In his Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding (Beasley Report), published in April 2025, the Honourable Justice Richard Beasley commented on what he saw as the limited capacity of a s 19 review − as determined by the 1998 State Decision − to bring about the wholesale reviews of awards which his Honour recommended.
2. Beasley J recorded in Chapter 18 of his Report that there was a general consensus among the parties that appeared before his inquiry that NSW Health awards were outdated and no longer fit for purpose and so required substantive reform, with the exception of the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award.[9] The Report noted that the Commission is required to review each award every three years in order to modernise awards and that at least some of the awards were reviewed in 2021 and 2022, but that:

"these reviews appear to have focussed on particular issues raised by parties rather than conducting a wholesale review for the purposes of determining whether modernisation or consolidation should occur."[10]

1. The Beasley Report identified that the reason such reviews had not led to the necessary wholesale review was the narrow view taken by the 1998 Full Bench's interpretation of the award review process. The Beasley Report took the view that the Full Bench in the 1998 State Decision interpreted that the s 19 process:

"a. was not to be used for the purpose of ensuring that in substance an award met the needs of employers and employees in the circumstances of the relevant industry or enterprise;

b. was not a mechanism for employers or employees to overcome the effects of a previous decision of the Commission or an earlier bargain;

c. did not, at least generally, allow the Commission to insert new conditions into an award, even ones the Commission might think should be contained in a 'modern' award of that kind; and

d. was to be driven by the parties in the same way as other litigation, such that, for example, the review was to be determined based on material put before it by the parties and not by the Commission 'embark[ing] upon a wide ranging investigation into the operation of a particular award or industry'."[11]

1. That led Beasley J to make the following recommendations, being recommendations that we asked the parties in these proceedings to address:

"Recommendation 28: There should be an award reform process conducted by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales incorporating at least the following features:

a. a legislated set of objectives to be achieved by the process, which include:

i. simplifying and, where appropriate, consolidating the current range of awards, determinations and other instruments setting terms and conditions of employment or engagement for NSW Health workers, to provide a consistent and coherent framework of terms and conditions that is easy to understand and apply; and

ii. updating instruments so that they reflect the current and expected future service delivery and workforce needs of the NSW health system and current and expected future working conditions; and

iii. providing fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment or engagement for workers across the NSW health system, including having regard to the value of their work to system, the impact of those terms and conditions on attraction and retention, and their fiscal and economic impacts;

b. a reasonable but expeditious timeframe in which the process is to be completed; and

c. an extension of the process to Visiting Medical Officers and the Visiting Medical Officer Determinations.

Recommendation 29: To the extent that legislative amendment is necessary for the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales to be able to complete the award modernisation process contemplated by Recommendation 28 other than in the context of an industrial dispute (and unconstrained any prior construction given to s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act), that amendment should be made urgently."

1. To a large extent the Beasley Report's summary of the 1998 decision, as quoted above, is correct. As the Full Bench in 1998 implicitly recognised, a s 19 review, being a Commission-led process that is largely administrative in nature, is not a suitable vehicle for parties to advance substantive change. The structure of the Act is one that empowers the Commission to make awards that resolve disputes between parties. Such awards are by their nature the consequence of the competing interests of parties, manifested through contested proceedings. Arbitrations that give rise to awards or amendments to awards are adversarial proceedings which involve evidence and submissions being contested in open court and written reasons being given for the determination. Those awards or amendments not made by arbitration occur as a result of consent applications, being the outcome of negotiations, often assisted by conciliation. While the Commission has the power to make awards on its own motion,[12] historically the making and varying of awards under the Industrial Relations Act has always been party-led. This is reflected in the Award Making Principles (AMPs). Principle 9.1 of the AMPs identifies that, other than in limited circumstances, substantive changes to awards that are not made or varied by consent are to be progressed as an arbitrated case before a Full Bench and will ordinarily only be granted if they meet one or more of the criteria in the Arbitrated Case Principle.
2. In light of those matters, and as the 1998 State Decision held, given the overall scheme of the Industrial Relations Act, a s 19 review is not the appropriate vehicle to make substantive changes to an award that might be advanced by employers or employees, including to alter a previous arbitrated decision or an earlier bargain, even where the Commission "might think" (to quote the Beasley Report) such conditions should be contained in a modern award.
3. That last expression is one that warrants further comment. What the Commission "might think" following a largely administrative exercise conducted by conciliation but without the benefit of evidence and contested submissions in open court could only, in our view, be a preliminary view.
4. We are of the view, as each of the parties in these proceedings urged and as the 1998 State Decision concluded, that a s 19 review is not itself the appropriate vehicle to determine substantive contested changes to awards. In our view, absent a legislative directive and authority of the sort identified by Recommendation 29 of the Beasley Report, the Commission would not initiate wide-ranging reviews into substantive conditions of employment across swathes of the NSW public sector and local government of its own motion.
5. We accept, however, the gravamen of the criticism of the Beasley Report, namely that it is undesirable for the Commission to conduct a review and form a preliminary view that one or more awards need substantive change in order to be a "modern" award, and then do nothing about it.
6. In light of that, we determine that at the conclusion of a review the Commission ought to identify in its decision issues that involve substantive changes to terms and conditions of employment that the Commission considers need to be addressed in subsequent proceedings, such as when the award is next being renewed or varied. These might include the standardisation of conditions or consolidation of awards involving substantive changes to terms and conditions that are contested (noting that such consolidation and standardisation ought to occur through the s 19 process if consent can be reached).
7. In addition to identifying those subject matters that require consideration in later proceedings, the member of the Commission should also consider making specific recommendations about such issues if the Commission considers that to be appropriate. That should only be done, however, after the Commission has given the parties the opportunity to make submissions as to the content of such a recommendation or recommendations before they are finalised.
8. We note that in the past a s 19 review was sometimes heard and determined alongside an application made by a party under s 17 to vary an award. The latter application created a vehicle for a party to seek substantive changes, initially through conciliation and, where that failed, by arbitration. The Principles we propose do not prevent such an approach. They are founded, however, on the presumption that a s 19 review is able to be conducted and concluded without the need to determine other applications to vary the award made by a party. Ultimately it will be a matter for the Commission member who is allocated the proceedings to determine the most appropriate and efficient course. In some cases, the issues that are being considered might be thought sufficiently connected to mean that it will be more efficient to determine the outcome of the review at the same time as a related application. However, ordinarily the approach set by the Principles we propose to make will give the Commission sufficient flexibility to be able to determine the s 19 review first, with any arbitration to consider substantive contested proceedings heard subsequently, potentially assisted by a recommendation or statement.
9. Finally, we are mindful of the fact that the Industrial Relations Act was amended on 13 October 2025 to include the elimination of gender-based undervaluation as a further object at s 3(f1)(ii), being a matter that must be considered when exercising the Commission's powers:

3 Objects

...

(f1) to achieve gender equality in the workplace, and in particular -

...

(ii) to eliminate gender-based undervaluation.

1. In light of that amendment, we consider that the Award Review Principles ought to also contain a specific requirement that the Commission member conducting the review should consider whether to make a statement or recommendation that the award or awards in question may need or do need to be examined to eliminate gender-based undervaluation.

1. Unions NSW commenced its submissions by identifying that "the drafting of many awards leaves a great deal to be desired" but nevertheless contended that there was no clear benefit for broad award reform that would outweigh the potential costs of a large-scale project to review awards, given that a wholesale review of awards would require unions to expend significant resources.
2. Unions NSW was wary that the redrafting and consolidation of industrial awards could risk the reduction in employees' actual terms and conditions and disrupt longstanding arrangements, thereby increasing disputation. It was submitted that a fundamental purpose of any award review process would be to ensure there is no reduction in terms and conditions of employment.
3. On that basis, Unions NSW opposed amendments to the Principles which would require plain English drafting, a consistent order and format, or a presumption in favour of award consolidation and/or the standardisation of conditions. Unions NSW also proposed that the Commission should adopt a "minimalist" approach when dealing with awards that contain conditions that are inconsistent with any entitlements in Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act, by inserting an award clause into such awards indicating that an employee under the award is covered by Pt 6-3, in order to avoid having to engage in a longer process of amending an existing award term.
4. Notwithstanding those submissions, Unions NSW submitted that productivity gains can be achieved by an award review and reform process and that any such gains should be reflected by an uplift in wages of 0.5%. It also supported the consolidation and modernisation exercise of the kind discussed by Recommendation 28 of the Beasley Report, and any legislative reform that might be required for the Commission to perform that exercise as recommended by Recommendation 29.

1. Joint submissions were made on behalf of the Industrial Relations Secretary, Transport Secretary, Health Secretary, Fire and Rescue NSW, Commissioner of Police, and Secretary of the Department of Education (the Secretaries).
2. In oral submissions, counsel for the Secretaries addressed three propositions which he submitted underpinned the Secretaries' submissions: first, that the current Principles were largely fit for purpose and that alterations ought to be limited in scope; second, that s 19 should be recognised as a Commission-led process (rather than a party-led process) which should not be used as an "alternative gateway" for the exercise of the Commission's other powers under the Industrial Relations Act, particularly at ss 10 and 17; and third, that the Commission should take a "pragmatic approach" in achieving the objectives set out in the summons by way of, for example, a test case for plain English drafting.
3. In reply submissions, the Secretaries supported the positions of parties who noted that plain English drafting should be couched as an aspiration rather than an obligation during award review processes.
4. The Secretaries were supportive of amendments to the Principles which would have award clauses follow a consistent order and format, create a presumption in favour of award consolidation and the standardisation of conditions, require parties to engage in conciliation during award review, and examine awards concurrently in batches. The Secretaries also recognised that the National Employment Standards (NES) entitlements in Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act should be considered in a s 19 review, but they opposed the Commission undertaking a comparative or qualitative assessment of award terms and other NES entitlements.
5. The Secretaries opposed Recommendation 28 of the Beasley Report on the basis that the objectives in it exceeded the scope and purpose of a s 19 review process. In a similar vein, the Secretaries submitted that productivity improvements arising from award reviews should not be implemented in the review process itself but by the Commission exercising its powers under ss 10 and 17 on application.
6. The Secretaries identified that principle 14 needed to be updated with State decisions made after 1998.
7. The Secretaries also contended that other principles ought to be amended. Those amendments were to:

(1) replace the text of principle 4 to read:

"Consistent with s.19(1) of the Act, at least once every three years, the Registrar, in a manner the Registrar deems fit, will give notice to those with an established industrial interest in applications affecting that award, that the award is due to be reviewed";

(2) include a reference in principle 12 to s 146(2) of the Industrial Relations Act and the mandatory factors that the Commission must consider when exercising its functions;

(4) delete from principle 16 the words "whether those procedures facilitate resolution of industrial disputes concerning discrimination in employment on a ground to which the Anti-Discrimination Act applies";

(5) change the definition of "obsolete award" in principle 22 from an award where "there are no employees or employers under that award" to an award where "there are no employees or employers under that award, and no intention of employees or employers under that award in the future"; and

(6) change principle 23 to indicate that where no application to vary an award has been made for five years or more, there is a presumption rather than an indication that the award may be obsolete and require rescission.

1. Local Government NSW (LGNSW) supported amendments to the Principles that would introduce an obligation for plain English drafting, refer to the conciliation of award review proceedings, and require the Commission to review whether award terms and conditions are inconsistent with the NES provisions in Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act.
2. LGNSW opposed the inclusion of a principle that would have award clauses follow a "predetermined" order and format, on the basis that the reconfiguration of award clauses might undo "finely balanced" consent outcomes in the local government sector. It also opposed the variation of awards to recognise productivity improvements arising from award review and modernisation during a s 19 review.
3. LGNSW submitted that the objectives raised by Recommendation 28 of the Beasley Report are already contemplated by s 10 of the Industrial Relations Act which empowers the Commission to make an award setting fair and reasonable conditions of employment. It also submitted that a batched approach to award review was already contemplated by principle 6.

1. The HSU opposed a presumption in favour of consolidating awards on a similar basis to Unions NSW, namely that the exercise of award consolidation is extremely resource intensive. It submitted that employee interests need to be actively represented in order to prevent the reduction of entitlements during standardisation.
2. The HSU, while supporting plain English drafting on principle, acknowledged that the redrafting of existing awards was a time-consuming, technical and resource intensive exercise, as demonstrated by the plain language drafting exercise that is currently being undertaken by the FWC.[13] To the extent that the Principles dealt with plain English drafting, it was submitted such drafting should be expressed as an aspiration rather than obligation, and that the Commission should consult with the parties to develop plain language guidelines to be tested via a review of a test case clause or specific award.
3. The HSU opposed an amendment to the Principles that would require award clauses to follow a standard order and format, due to the "diversity of the structure" of public sector awards, "integration between existing awards and payroll systems and processes", and absence of an arbitrated standard order and format.
4. While the HSU supported Recommendation 28 of the Beasley Report, it did not view the issues raised in those Recommendations as needing to be addressed through a s 19 review process, given that the Commission is able to make, rescind and vary awards pursuant to sections 10 and 17 of the Industrial Relations Act.
5. The HSU also noted specific principles which were out-of-date, such as principle 7 which refers to obsolete counterpart awards or principle 14 which does not include State decisions made after 1998.
6. The HSU also suggested that principles 9 and 10 could be amended to:

(1) include the right of intervention provided by s 167 for peak councils, the Minister, and the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board in principle 9; and

(2) reconsider the usual directions in principle 10 for hearings involving major redrafting.

1. The Australian Paramedics Association (APA) supported the inclusion of a "guiding principle for plain English drafting" in the Principles. It submitted that a s 19 review should include an update of award terms and conditions which are less beneficial than the NES that apply to non-national system employees.
2. It did not support amendments to the Principles which would require that, as a matter of course, award clauses follow a consistent order and format or a presumption in favour of consolidating awards and standardising conditions applying to employees employed by the same sector or part of the public sector, due to what the APA identified as "occupational specificity or distinct operational requirements" in public sector industries.

1. On 11 August 2025, the HSU and the Health Secretary filed an agreed statement of facts (ASOF) that detailed the parties' process to consolidate, reform and modernise the more than 50 awards and determinations applying to employees covered by the HSU in the NSW public health system with the aim of reducing them to about 6 awards. In summary that evidence established that the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the HSU began discussions, meetings and correspondence relating to award reform and structural consolidation in 2023, although the MOH considers that the award reform negotiation meetings formally commenced on 2 August 2024. The HSU says the process started even earlier, when it engaged with members as to the form and content of award modernisation from mid-2022. The ASOF summarised the current status of award negotiations for the two broad streams that are the focus of the award reform process; the steps undertaken by the HSU internally and with its members during the process, as well as the number of persons who "resourced" the HSU at each step; and a log of the scheduled meetings held between the HSU and the MOH.
2. That evidence served to reinforce two matters that were the subject of submissions. The first is that a modernisation exercise, properly conducted, can require the expenditure of significant time and resources by the parties. We note, however that an exercise of consolidating over 50 instruments into about 6 awards is extraordinary, being at a level well exceeding what will ordinarily be required. The second is that parties working cooperatively and with the assistance of the Commission can achieve substantial reform. As the President said in Secretary of the Ministry of Health v Health Services Union NSW:

"[9] The parties are now within striking distance of achieving something that would stand as one of the most significant industrial reforms that has occurred in this jurisdiction for many years. ...

[10] The outcome of this project will not only benefit the workers and managers covered by the new simplified and modernised awards, who will be able to perform their jobs more efficiently, but also the health service and the people of NSW more generally. These are not changes that might be expected to result in immediately quantifiable reduction in costs. Rather, like changes in other areas of regulation directed at reducing red tape and unnecessary complexity, these are changes that can be expected to increase efficiency and productivity over time."[14]

1. We now turn to the questions that the parties were asked to address.

1. LGNSW, the APA and the HSU supported the retention of the Principles and a review of their form and content generally. The Secretaries also supported the retention of the Principles and submitted that minor amendments should be made to the Principles to remove overly prescriptive requirements and preserve the Commission's discretion. Unions NSW's written submissions did not explicitly provide a position on whether the Principles should be retained but adopted their existence as an underlying assumption in their submissions.
2. We agree with the parties that principles to guide the process of award reviews, with a practice note to guide procedure, are helpful and should be determined.
3. We do not see a need for the Principles to repeat the statutory provisions, and to that end the draft Principles proposed and attached to this decision delete various provisions which are not necessarily incorrect but are unnecessary.

Introducing an obligation for plain English drafting

1. LGNSW was the only party which supported amending the Principles to include a plain English drafting obligation. The Secretaries, APA and HSU, while supporting plain English drafting in principle, submitted that plain English drafting should be included in the Principles as an aspiration rather than requirement. The Secretaries, in their reply submissions, supported the HSU's proposal that, should the Commission include a principle relating to plain English drafting, it should first facilitate a consultative process with industrial parties to develop plain language guidelines which could then be considered in the context of a pilot project.
2. Unions NSW observed that many awards:

"are archaic, arcane and ambiguous. Some provisions of some awards border on the incomprehensible. Much of the ambiguity appears to be avoidable."

1. Unions NSW however cautioned against any amendment to the Principles that would elevate a requirement for plain English drafting over the need to avoid any reduction in actual terms and conditions of employment.
2. The FWC has introduced plain language drafting guidelines (FWC Guidelines) to assist in re-drafting modern awards.[15] The FWC Guidelines were developed out of a pilot that was established in September 2015 to create a plain language exposure draft based on the Pharmacy Industry Award 2010.[16]
3. The FWC's proceedings to redraft federal awards in plain language has occupied a substantial amount of its time and resources. A Full Bench of the FWC resolved in March 2017 to redraft a tranche of ten awards in plain language.[17] Of those ten, the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010 and the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 are still currently under review.
4. We consider that plain English drafting ought to be a goal of an award review, with an aim to remove ambiguity and imprecise drafting to improve ease of understanding. To that end the FWC Guidelines provide a useful guide that can be applied.
5. The parties are right, however, when they submit that certain terms in an award have over time come to have an understood meaning, and care needs to be taken not to alter such terms unnecessarily with the potential risk of creating, rather than removing, ambiguity.
6. Further, we agree with the parties that the goal of plain English drafting ought to be applied in a sensible and pragmatic manner. The goal ought not become an end in itself that takes up more time than can be justified by the improvements it might bring about.

Having award clauses follow a consistent order and format

1. The HSU, Unions NSW and LGNSW opposed amendments to the Principles that would require award clauses follow a consistent order and format. That was not because they opposed consistency in order and formatting in general; the HSU acknowledged that it would be a "positive development" that could "greatly improve useability and assist employees and managers in identifying their relevant rights and obligations". Instead, it was submitted by the HSU that it would be burdensome to produce a standard format across awards given the diversity of the structure across different public sector awards and the integration between existing awards and payroll systems and processes. Unions NSW submitted that such a requirement in the Principles would risk elevating improvements in drafting over the overriding need to maintain conditions. LGNSW submitted that local government awards should not be required to follow a predetermined order and format as that could risk undoing negotiated outcomes in those awards.
2. The APA contended that an express requirement for awards to adopt a consistent order and format may not be required, as s 19(3) already requires the Commission to consider during the award review process any "unnecessary technicalities in the awards and the ease of understanding of the awards", noting that the phrase "unnecessary technicalities" is defined in principle 18 as "the language, order or composition of clauses".
3. The Secretaries supported the introduction of this requirement, submitting that it could "assist stakeholders with engaging with the applicable industrial instrument". In their reply submissions the Secretaries agreed with the submission of other parties that the restructuring of award clauses should only be done whenever it is reasonably possible or appropriate so as to not create administrative difficulties or undo the legal effect of an award.
4. We consider it would assist if awards followed a similar format, as occurs in respect of federal awards. While creating some initial work, it will assist parties and regular users of awards to navigate the relevant provisions efficiently. To that end, we propose that the Principles would annex a standard index that could be used when conducting an award review and awards should be reordered to follow the standard index unless there is a good reason not to do so.
5. Again, however, the award review process in this regard should be pragmatic and avoid undue time being spent on resolving disputes about the exact order of the provisions of an award. Further, the Principles will not require awards to be reordered. There may well be force in the oral submissions from Unions NSW that renumbering might, at least in some cases, have unintended consequences that would reduce rather than enhance productivity and efficiency, including requiring some changes to payroll processes or publications that explain awards which would be expensive or time-consuming to have to amend. Whether those concerns are valid is a matter that we consider can be left to the Commission member considering whether to reorder an award.

Whether there ought to be a presumption in favour of consolidating awards and/or standardising conditions that apply to employees employed by the same section or part of the public sector

1. Unions NSW, the APA and the HSU opposed the introduction of a presumption in favour of consolidation. The APA submitted that it would be more appropriate for parties themselves to determine in which circumstances consolidation is suitable, rather than having to "disprove" a presumption of consolidation. On that basis, the APA supported the removal of the current presumption at principle 20 in favour of consolidating splinter and parent awards. The HSU proposed that a major consolidation exercise can create the risk of a reduction in entitlements. Instead, it was submitted that there should be a presumption in favour of maintaining existing terms and conditions unless the AMPs are satisfied.
2. The Secretaries supported the introduction of this presumption, provided that it could be displaced in circumstances where, for example, awards contain bespoke or distinctive terms and conditions which would hinder attempts at consolidation or standardisation.
3. We are satisfied that there ought to be no presumption in favour of consolidating awards and/or standardising conditions. There is, however, the potential for improvements in productivity and efficiency that come from reducing the number of awards that apply to like employees and removing small differences in conditions that apply to those working alongside each other by either consolidating awards or standardising conditions. Consequently, the Principles will require the Commission to consider whether it would promote productivity and efficiency for the awards that are being reviewed to be consolidated or their conditions standardised. If so, the Commission should then consider whether that can be done in the review proceedings or alternatively, because that would require a substantive change to existing conditions for employees covered by one or more awards, it ought to be the subject of a statement or recommendation to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.

The need for the Principles to reflect or accommodate the operation of Chapter 2A of the Industrial Relations Act

1. All of the parties submitted that the Principles do not need to reflect or accommodate the operation of Chapter 2A. The HSU, LGNSW, APA and the Secretaries distinguished between the purpose of a s 19 review and the parties entering into mutual gains bargaining under Chapter 2A to negotiate substantive changes to award terms and conditions.
2. We are satisfied for the reasons expressed by the parties that there is no need for the Principles to reflect or refer to the operation of Chapter 2A.
3. However, we note that some of the techniques that are used when engaged in interest-based or good faith bargaining might be utilised in the process of conciliating improvements to awards in the context of a s 19 review. They include avoiding positional bargaining and adopting instead a non-adversarial approach where the parties are encouraged to work collaboratively to achieve improvements to the award or awards being reviewed, to their mutual benefit. It would also include the parties sharing relevant information as part of collaborative discussions.

The procedure by which award review proceedings should be conciliated

1. The Secretaries and LGNSW supported the inclusion of an explicit requirement for parties to engage in conciliation. The Secretaries noted that since the nature and procedure for conciliation differs for each award review process, given the number and nature of the terms and awards being reviewed, the Principles should not impose any limits or specific guidelines as to how conciliation should be conducted.
2. Both Unions NSW and the HSU submitted that the existing procedure for award reviews was appropriate, namely, call overs conducted by the Commission during which it outlines tasks and assists parties with the conferral process, including via conciliation.
3. We agree that an award review will be primarily conducted by conciliation, with a hearing to be required only if there are ultimately contested positions that need to be determined. We are not inclined to mandate in the Principles themselves a particular approach to conciliation that must be adopted. It will be a matter for the Commission member as to how any particular review ought to be conducted.
4. It is intended that the Commission member will be guided by a revised Practice Note for the Procedures for Review of Awards, to be issued by the President. The Practice Note would contain provisions to the effect of those set out at in [10](11)-(22) above.

Whether award reviews should be conducted by examining awards concurrently in batches focusing on groups of awards that affect related employees

1. The Secretaries, HSU and LGNSW all supported a batched process of award review. The HSU acknowledged that in practice, awards are already grouped by agency or union coverage for review purposes, and that award review should proceed in this way. LGNSW noted that principle 6 already permits the Commission to review concurrently awards which involve the same union(s) and employer(s). The Secretaries submitted that conducting award review in this manner may assist in consolidating awards and standardising conditions.
2. Unions NSW opposed the examination of awards in this way, submitting that it carries "an increased and unjustifiable risk of reduction in conditions and/or increased disputation".
3. We are satisfied that some awards ought to be reviewed at the same time as other awards that apply to like employees. That is for two reasons. First, it is efficient for awards that apply to like employees, represented by the same parties, to be reviewed together (even if, in the process of a single review, the process involves considering them sequentially). Second, considering awards that apply to like employees at the same time allows the Commission and the parties to consider whether there ought to be consolidation or standardisation of conditions.
4. This approach will be reflected in the provision of the Practice Note stating that the Commission will commence a review by asking parties whether one or more awards should be considered together.

Whether and how any productivity improvements arising from award reviews and modernisation should be recognised

1. The HSU acknowledged that changes to awards which drive or recognise operational productivity improvements are more often dealt with during bargaining than award reviews. Nonetheless, where productivity improvements do arise from award reviews, the HSU submitted that they ought to be recognised by improvements to wages and/or conditions in accordance with the AMPs. In support of this submission, it is noted that s 19(6) permits the Commission to "make such changes to awards as it considers necessary as a result of a review".
2. The Secretaries and LGNSW submitted that the ambit of the s 19 review process did not accommodate potential productivity improvements that could arise from the award review process. During the hearing, LGNSW acknowledged the Commission's power under s 19(6) to make changes to awards "as it considers necessary", but submitted that the practical result of those changes needing to be pursued in accordance with the AMPs was that they would need to be determined in an arbitrated case with evidence, which is not suited to an award review proceeding. The Secretaries submitted that while productivity improvements could be recognised during award reviews, those improvements should only be recognised as part of an application to make or vary an award pursuant to ss 10 and 17.
3. Unions NSW proposed that any productivity improvements arising from an award review or modernisation process should result in a 0.5% wage uplift. No reason was given in written nor oral submissions to justify that figure. There is an apparent tension between that submission and the rest of Unions NSW's submissions that an award review should not extend to a review of issues of substance.
4. We do not accept Unions NSW's proposal that a review ought to give rise to a predetermined 0.5% increase in remuneration, nor indeed any increase in remuneration other than by consent. A determination to increase remuneration requires consideration of a range of matters that in turn requires evidence that is often contested. An award review process is not suited to hearing and determining such matters.
5. However, as the President identified in his Statement in the proceedings that address the review of HSU awards that apply to the Health Secretary quoted above at [56], an award review process might be expected to give rise to an outcome that improves productivity and efficiency. If so, that ought to be recognised in some manner. That is industrially just and will also serve to encourage cooperation by unions and their members in the award review process.
6. We consider the most effective way to achieve the balance between those two competing factors is to include in the Principles an expectation that in the decision that concludes an award review, the Commission member will give consideration to the making of a statement addressing whether the changes are ones that are expected to improve productivity and efficiency and, if the member is so minded, including a recommendation that such changes ought to be taken into account in any future consideration of rates of pay. As a general observation we consider it would not be appropriate for the member to ordinarily go so far as to identify a particular change to rates of pay. Any recommendation that award review changes ought to be taken into account in a future consideration of rates of pay should be provided to the parties in advance to allow them to put submissions as to its terms before it is finalised.

Whether the Commission should undertake and complete the award modernisation process contemplated by Recommendations 28 and 29 of the Beasley Report

1. The Beasley Report formed the view that this Commission should undertake a wholesale review and modernisation of awards that cover NSW Health employees. Recommendation 28 recommended that the Commission should conduct an "award reform process" incorporating a "legislated set of objectives to be achieved by the process", including the simplification and (where appropriate) consolidation of industrial instruments; an update to instruments to reflect the current and expected future service delivery, workforce needs, and working conditions of the NSW health system; and the setting of fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for NSW Health workers. These objectives at Recommendation 28 were supported by Unions NSW, the HSU and the APA.
2. Recommendation 28 does not tie such a process to s 19 review, but to the extent that s 19 or any other provision constrains the Commission from completing such a review other than in the context of an industrial dispute, Recommendation 29 recommended that there be legislative change to enable the Commission to do so.
3. The HSU submitted that Recommendation 28 could be achieved through a s 19 review process, although it did not need to be. That was because these objectives could already be realised by the Commission's powers to make, vary and rescind awards under ss 10, 17 and 162 of the Industrial Relations Act, including, if necessary, by acting on its own motion. Therefore, so the HSU contended, further legislative change was unnecessary. For example, an application for new awards covering NSW Health employees is anticipated to be made later this year and arbitrated sometime next year.
4. The HSU did, however, recognise the difference between the traditional focus of the Commission to altering paid rates awards at the initiative of the parties and after extensive attempts to conciliate outcomes on the one hand, and the administrative approach of the Fair Work Commission which has a duty to make modern awards that cover particular industries on the other. The HSU accepted that this Commission's traditional approach to making awards on an inter partes basis is an "entirely appropriate" practice which reflects the different nature of awards in the two jurisdictions and the "somewhat different" duties of the NSW and federal industrial tribunals. In the context of this concession, the HSU emphasised that it does not oppose legislative reform if there is an obstacle to the Commission conducting the kind of review contemplated by Recommendation 28. As counsel for the HSU, Mr Saunders, succinctly put it: "We think you can do it. If you can't do it, you should be able to."
5. These submissions were endorsed by Unions NSW during the hearing. LGNSW submitted that some of the objectives in Recommendations 28 are already contemplated by provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, namely at ss 10, 19(2) and 19(3)(f).
6. The Secretaries identified several features of the objectives in Recommendation 28 that they submitted fell outside of the scope of what could be considered in a s 19 review. Those were, namely, the consolidation of "determinations and other instruments", as the power under s 19 is limited to a review of only "awards"; considerations of current and expected future service delivery, workforce needs and expected future working conditions, which are "substantive" elements which should be examined under the AMPs; and the setting of fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, which is dealt with under s 10. The Secretaries were agnostic towards whether the legislative amendment proposed by Recommendation 29 was desirable. We understand that the Secretaries are not opposed to some form of award review that has regard to the matters raised in Recommendation 28 (except for the consolidation of industrial instruments which are not awards), provided that it is not conducted under s 19.
7. We set out earlier the Beasley Report's concern as to the limited capacity of a s 19 review to bring about necessary reform to NSW Health awards. That specific concern is being addressed in the separate proceedings currently before the President. The wider concern is one that we consider ought to be addressed in the limited manner set out earlier in these reasons, namely by the Commission considering whether to identify in the decision that concludes the review if there are substantive changes that ought to be considered in future proceedings, and potentially to make recommendations as to such changes.
8. We agree in part with the Secretaries' submission that s 19 does not empower the Commission to conduct award reviews to the full extent called for by Recommendation 28. The principal limitations are on the Commission's capacity - pursuant to a s 19 review − to set fair, reasonable and thus substantive terms and conditions of employment and to consider current and expected future service delivery, workforce needs and expected future working conditions, which are "substantive" elements which travel beyond the scope of s 19.
9. Furthermore, we do not consider that the statutory context giving rise to the Commission's traditional approach to its substantive award making powers is apt to accommodate the kind of systematic and wide-ranging process contemplated in the Beasley Report. We note that the award review process endorsed in Recommendation 28 is explicitly contemplated to be conducted in accordance with "a legislated set of objectives to be achieved by the process". We consider that the Industrial Relations Act presently lacks such a set of objectives.
10. Accordingly, to be able to complete an award modernisation process as contemplated by Recommendation 28 in the Beasley Report, we consider that the legislative amendment called for by Recommendation 29 is necessary. According to the Beasley Report, this amendment "should be made urgently".

Whether the Principles should deal with awards that contain terms and conditions that are inconsistent with and not more beneficial than the NES in Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act

1. Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act extends some NES entitlements to non-national system employees, including State and local government employees. Those entitlements are to unpaid parental leave and related entitlements, paid family and domestic violence leave, and notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice. These provisions are not intended to apply to the exclusion of the "laws of a State or Territory", including an "instrument" made by a State industrial law such as an award,[18] to the extent that those laws apply to non-national system employees and provide entitlements to those employees that are more beneficial than the federal entitlements.[19] The consequence is that there may be conditions of employment to which NSW public sector and local government employees are entitled pursuant to Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act which are not found in the relevant state award. The Full Bench invited the parties to make submissions on how the Commission should deal with awards that contain terms and conditions that are inconsistent with one or more of the entitlements in Pt 6-3 during a s 19 review.
2. In oral submissions, the Secretaries submitted that the Commission should have regard to the Pt 6-3 entitlements during a s 19 review, in part because of the requirement in s 19(3)(b) for the Commission to consider "minimum conditions of employment".
3. Unions NSW proposed that the Commission should adopt a "minimalist" "signposting" method, namely, the insertion of an award clause indicating that an employee is covered by the entitlements at Pt 6-3 regardless of any other entitlements provided for in the award. When questioned by the President as to why it would not be preferable for an award to clearly state an employee's entitlements, Unions NSW submitted that it would be time-consuming to compare whether an existing award entitlement is more or less beneficial than the NES entitlement. The HSU noted that the signposting method has the benefit of being able to accommodate any change to the Fair Work Act. While LGNSW did not endorse the "signposting" method, it also noted that the introduction of a principle dealing with Pt 6-3 would raise questions as to how the Commission should assess whether an existing award entitlement is inconsistent or less beneficial than an NES entitlement.
4. We do not agree that mere "signposting" is appropriate. That would mean that a person seeking to enforce conditions would need to enforce federal conditions, even though they are covered by a State award. It might in some cases lead to an employee having to enforce more than one instrument under two different Acts. It also leaves those covered by a State award having to undertake the task of both finding and then reconciling federal statutory rights with those set by the award.
5. We determine that when conducting a review the Commission should turn its mind as to what changes, if any, need to be made to ensure that the award itself provides benefits no less favourable than those provided by Pt 6-3. That could be achieved by substantive change to conditions with no reference to Pt 6-3, or by adding a clause in respect of each of the three subject matters which provides for notice, payment in lieu of notice and paid domestic violence leave benefits that are no less favourable than those provided by Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act.

1. As well as the specific issues that the Commission invited parties to make submissions on, the parties contended that other principles ought to be amended.

Whether we should amend the way the Registrar gives notice of award review

1. Principle 4 restates rule 39 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1992 (NSW) (1992 Rules), which set out how the Registrar ought to give notice to parties to awards that were to be reviewed:

"Rule 39 of the Commission's Rules requires that at least once every three years the Registrar will give notice to the persons on the record maintained under r 40 as to the parties to the award, State peak councils and others who have established a sufficient industrial interest in applications affecting that award, that the award is due to be reviewed. Such notice:

(a) may be given whenever an application for a new award is filed;

(b) will be given when a period of 30 months has passed since the award was made or last reviewed, whichever is the later; or

(c) will be given before 2 July 1998 in respect of any awards then in force which were made prior to 2 September 1996 and which have not already been reviewed."

1. The Secretaries submitted that principle 4 should be entirely rewritten to reflect the amendments to the Industrial Relations Commission Rules and Industrial Relations Act since 1998, as follows:

"Consistent with s.19(1) of the Act, at least once every three years, the Registrar, in a manner the Registrar deems fit, will give notice to those with an established industrial interest in applications affecting that award, that the award is due to be reviewed."

1. The HSU, in its reply submissions, submitted that an amendment to principle 4 should be limited to updating the reference from rule 39 of the 1992 Rules to rule 6.7 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2022 and deleting (c). It submitted that the Secretaries' proposed amendment removed necessary certainty as to the process of notification and unjustifiably narrowed the number of parties to be notified.
2. The APA, in its reply submissions, suggested that the principle should include a timeframe for when the review would occur, as the Secretaries' amendment to principle 4 would have the Registrar give notice to parties "at least once every three years", which could be longer than the current requirement to give notice 30 months after the award's creation or most recent review.
3. We have determined that there should be a change to the procedure, in the manner set out at paragraph [10](13)-(14) above.

1. Principle 7 provides: "When reviewing counterpart awards to a federal award, the Commission will take account of their counterpart nature."
2. The HSU contended that this principle appears to be obsolete. We agree that this principle, which was relevant at the time it was made, is now redundant and can be removed.

Whether we should amend principles 9 and 10 relating to the parties to the review proceedings

1. Principle 9 restates the entitlement in s 19(5) of the Industrial Relations Act of relevant industrial organisations and other parties to the award to make submissions at the review hearing. Principle 10 prescribes the steps parties must take to exercise that right.
2. The HSU submitted that principle 9 could be amended to make reference to the rights of the Minister, President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, or State peak council to intervene in proceedings pursuant to s 167 of the Industrial Relations Act. There is no need for the Principles to repeat statutory provisions. As such, this is not a matter that needs to be addressed.
3. The HSU further submitted that the procedure for principle 10 may need to be reconsidered for hearings which involve major redrafting of awards. That is addressed by the change to the procedure as set out in [10](15) and (18) above.

Whether we should amend principle 12 relating to the matters the Commission takes account of when reviewing awards

1. The Secretaries made a submission that we should amend principle 12 to explicitly refer to s 146(2) and the mandatory factors that the Commission must consider when exercising its functions.
2. The mandatory considerations are just that: mandatory matters that the Commission must consider when exercising its functions including a s 19 review. We are not minded, however, to accede to the Secretaries' submission given our view that the Principles need not repeat statutory provisions.

Whether we should amend principle 14 to include new test cases

1. During the course of the proceedings it was identified that principle 14, which lists test cases that must be considered, needs to be updated to include test cases determined since 1998, such as: Superannuation Case 2025 (No 4),[20] State Wage Case 2024,[21] Secure Employment Test Case 2006,[22] National Union of Workers v Employers' Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Vic) (Redundancy Case),[23] Re Storage Services - General - Award (Re Redundancy Case - Supplementary Decision),[24] and State Part-Time Work Case.[25] The inclusion of some of those later cases may allow for some of the test cases currently listed in principle 14 to be removed.
2. It was also suggested in the course of proceedings that it might be more convenient for the Principles to set out the terms of test case standard clauses rather than to merely list test cases.
3. The Secretaries and the HSU in their submissions accepted that the clause needed to be updated and that, in principle at least, it might be more convenient for test case clauses to be included. The parties indicated that such matters could be addressed by them in submissions as to the terms of the Principles after this decision is handed down. We are content to take that course. As such the draft Principles published with this decision do not attempt to update the references, and we invite the parties by way of supplementary submissions to address how the Principles ought to be updated in that regard.

1. The Secretaries contended we should delete from principle 15 the words "will have regard to the needs of employers and employees as well as the public interest in removing from awards unjustified impediments to employment", in respect of the Commission's consideration of part-time work, casual work, and job-sharing arrangements pursuant to s 19(3)(c).
2. The Secretaries also contended we should delete from principle 16 the words "whether those award procedures facilitate resolution of industrial disputes concerning discrimination in employment on a ground to which the Anti-Discrimination Act applies", in respect of the Commission's consideration of award dispute resolution procedures pursuant to s 19(3)(d).
3. While we agree with the Secretaries that the Principles do not need to give prominence to certain criteria that the Commission should take into account when it considers the matters in s 19(3), we have taken the view that there is no need for the Principles to repeat the text of statutory provisions. As such principles 15 and 16 can be removed and the proposed changes to the text are unnecessary.

Whether we should amend the principles relating to obsolete awards

1. An "obsolete award" is defined by principle 22(a) as an award where "there are no employees or employers under that award". The Secretaries contended that we should amend the definition of an obsolete award to refer to an award where "there are no employees or employers under that award, and no intention of employees or employers coming under that award in the future". In the proceedings, counsel for the Secretaries was asked to identify the person or persons to whom the relevant lack of "intention" is imputed. The Secretaries replied that the Commission might rely on an inquiry of the parties, especially the relevant Secretary. LGNSW submitted that rather than "intention" the word "prospect" might be more appropriate.
2. In our view there is no value in maintaining, and having to review, awards which do not apply to any employees. We accept that there may be a rare case where an award that applies to no employees at that particular point in time can be expected to apply to employees in the foreseeable future. We are not minded to leave the question to the subjective intention of the parties, nor to maintain awards where there is merely the prospect that an award might apply to an employee in the future. Instead, the Commission will ordinarily determine that an award is obsolete if it does not set conditions that apply to any employees and is not expected to do so in the foreseeable future.
3. Currently principle 23 provides that where no application to vary an award has been made for five years or more, it indicates a presumption that the award may be obsolete. Unions NSW noted that many awards will not have been varied in five years or more.
4. We accept that the presumption has the potential to be misleading, given that there are awards that do not set rates of pay but only conditions that might not have been varied for many years but continue to apply to employees. We do not see the utility in the presumption and determine that it should be removed.

1. Government sector employers are able to make determinations fixing the conditions of employment for employees, including under the following provisions:

(1) Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 22, 23,

(2) Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW), s 71,

(3) Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), s 33C,

(4) Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW), s 52,

(5) Health Services Act 1997 (NSW), s 116A,

(6) Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 86,

(7) Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW), s 13, and

(8) Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), s 68K.

1. There is no public register of such determinations. These determinations set terms and conditions of employment, in some circumstances to address gaps in respect of conditions set by an award, and in other circumstances to provide benefits over and above those set by an award. For example, there are determinations that set rates of pay for a new classification of employees and determinations that provide a loading for particular types of work, in each case requiring a person to read both the award and the determination to be able to understand the full entitlements of employees covered by the award.
2. The parties were asked to consider whether, when conducting an award review, the Commission ought to have regard to any relevant determinations that apply to the employees covered by the award or awards being reviewed.
3. The Secretaries submitted that the Commission has the power to have regard to a determination when assessing an award, in order to have a complete overview of the terms and conditions of the relevant employees. However, given that a determination can be unilaterally extinguished by a Secretary and the Commission has no power to vary or rescind a determination, the Secretaries urged the Commission to not readily insert conditions of employment set by a determination into an award during an award review. Unions NSW and the HSU submitted that the Commission should take determinations into account when considering what is appropriate in an award.
4. We accept the Commission does not have the power to directly vary or rescind determinations, while noting that the making of an award that deals with the same subject matter will ordinarily have the effect of removing the legal effect of a determination.[26]
5. We do not accept that it follows that the Commission cannot have regard to determinations during an award review. By their very nature, determinations set conditions of employment that at least one party considers are necessary, including in respect of pay and conditions which are not addressed in an award that otherwise applies to those employees and otherwise is considered a 'paid rates' award setting their full conditions. As such, their existence and terms are relevant in considering whether the award contains terms that are fair and reasonable.
6. We are of the view that it may be beneficial for the parties to be able to find all relevant conditions in a single instrument, being the award, rather than there being multiple instruments in the form of an award plus one or more determinations, particularly given the fact that determinations are not readily available. This is also consistent with s 3(e) in the objects of the Act to facilitate appropriate regulation of employment through awards, enterprise agreements and other industrial instruments.
7. The existence of a determination can also assist to identify if there are gaps in an award that need to be addressed, such as a new classification for which the award contains no current rate of pay.
8. Finally, even if an award is not to be amended to, in effect, repeat the contents of a determination on the same or similar terms, the terms of a determination ought nevertheless be considered to ensure that there is no inconsistency or ambiguity that arises because of the interaction between a determination and an award.
9. For those reasons we consider that when undertaking a s 19 review, it is appropriate for the Commission to have regard to any determinations that apply to employees covered by the award(s). That will allow the Commission to consider whether the awards require additional terms to address those matters currently dealt with by a determination, and to otherwise ensure the appropriate regulation of employment through the combination of different instruments.
10. We note that in order to have regard to relevant determinations it will be necessary for the employer to provide copies of all determinations that apply to the employees covered by the award or awards being reviewed at the outset of the review process.

1. Attached to this decision are three documents: draft Principles, a draft Practice Note, and a draft standard award index.
2. At the outset of this decision, we set out in summary our conclusions as to the content of the revised Principles, followed by a summary of the proposed procedure. Those summaries form the basis of the attached draft Principles and draft Practice Note respectively.

(1) The parties are directed to provide submissions by 4.00pm on Friday, 14 November 2025 as to the content of the draft Principles, draft Practice Note, and draft standard award index published as Annexures to this decision. The submissions are to address in particular the content of paragraphs [12] and [13] of the draft Principles, as to the test cases that ought to be included and the content of any test case clause(s).

ANNEXURE A - DRAFT PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEW OF AWARDS UNDER S 19 OF THE ACT

Draft published with Award Review Principles Case 2025

(1) These principles apply to the conduct of award reviews under s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).

(2) When conducting such a review the Commission will endeavour to achieve the purpose expressed in s 19(2) having regard to the mandatory considerations in ss 19(3)-(4) and 146(2) of the Industrial Relations Act.

(3) Awards are reviewed pursuant to s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act to update language and remove redundant provisions, to standardise conditions and consolidate awards where appropriate and to rescind awards that no longer apply to anyone.

(4) An award review should not reduce existing conditions of employment.

(5) Award reviews are not a vehicle for parties to pursue substantive improvements in conditions, other than:

(a) by consent;

(b) to the extent necessary to ensure that they reflect test case and statutory minima, including the entitlements extended to non-national system employees under Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth); or

(c) to increase wages and allowances in minimum rates awards to ensure that overall remuneration for particular classification(s) is not less than that set by the national minimum wage or a federal award for comparable work.

(6) Where there is more than one award that applies to employees who perform the same or similar work for the same employer in the same part of the public service or government sector and who are covered by the same union(s) ("like employees"), the Commission will consider whether the awards being reviewed should be consolidated and/or core conditions can be standardised in order to improve productivity and efficiency. If such changes are substantive and contested they ought to be dealt with in accordance with (11) below.

(7) Statutory determinations setting terms and conditions of employment that apply to employees covered by an award being reviewed will be considered by the Commission as part of the review. To the extent that an award does not deal with a subject matter that is addressed by a determination the Commission will consider if there is a good reason why that term ought not be included in the award. The Commission will otherwise consider determinations to ensure that there is no inconsistency or ambiguity that arises because of the interaction between a determination and an award.

(8) Unless there is good reason not to do so, awards should be reordered to follow a standard index format attached to these Principles.

(9) The Commission will make changes necessary to improve ease of understanding such as removing ambiguity and imprecise drafting, and to that end will have regard to the plain language drafting guidelines of the Fair Work Commission.

(10) Amendments to awards are to be made to the extent necessary to ensure that they are not less beneficial than minimum entitlements provided by Pt 6-3 of the Fair Work Act. Alternatively, a term is to be included that makes it an award obligation to provide specific entitlements that are no less favourable than those obligations.

(11) Where the Commission forms the view, having conducted an award review, that for an award or awards to be properly modernised the Commission needs to consider substantive changes which are contested, the Commission will express that view in the decision that determines the award review to enable the issue to be properly considered in subsequent arbitral proceedings. The Commission may in addition make recommendations that address those issues. In particular, the Commission member conducting the review should consider whether to make a recommendation that the award or awards may need or do need to be examined to eliminate gender-based undervaluation.

(12) Where the Commission considers it appropriate the Commission will at the end of a review identify whether changes have been made to the award that promote productivity and efficiency and whether their significance is such that Commission recommends that they ought to be taken into account in determining a future increase in remuneration.

(13) A 'test case' decision referred to in s 19(3)(a) means a decision made under Part 3 - National and State decisions of Chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act or any other decision which the Commission determines to be a test case having general application to awards in the State.

(14) The test case standards presently applying which must be taken into account by the Commission in a review are: [to be finalised following further submissions]

(a) Re Application for Redundancy Awards (1994) 53 IR 419;

(b) State Personal Carer's/Leave Case - August 1996 (1996) 68 IR 308;

(c) State Personal Carer's/Leave Case 1998 (unreported, IRC 96.2, 10 December 1998);

(d) State Wage Case - August 1997 (1997) 73 IR 200 and earlier State Wage Case decisions therein referred to.

(15) The Commission will consider whether there is any good reason not to include the test case clauses set out in the attached schedule [to be finalised following further submissions].

(16) An 'obsolete provision' of an award referred to in s 19(3)(f) of the Industrial Relations Act is a provision that covers circumstances which no longer apply to any employees.

(17) 'Unnecessary technicalities' in an award referred to in s 19(3)(f) of the Industrial Relations Act means the language, order or composition of clauses, which may lead to misinterpretation or which do not assist the reading and understanding of the award.

(18) An award is obsolete and ought to be rescinded if it does not set conditions that apply to any employees and it is not expected to do so in the foreseeable future.

(19) An award which covers only a small number of employees is not, by that fact alone, obsolete.

Draft published with Award Review Principles Case 2025

Procedures for Review of Awards under s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)

1. This Practice Note has effect from [date] and replaces previous Practice Note 13.

1. This Practice Note applies to the review of awards under s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) (the Act) and is made following the revised Principles for Review of Awards made in the Award Review Principles Case 2025.

1. The purpose of a s 19 review is to modernise and consolidate awards relating to the same industry and to rescind obsolete awards.[27]
2. While an award review is Commission-led, parties are expected to cooperate with the review process.
3. A s 19 review will not ordinarily be dealt with as part of the same proceedings as a substantive application to vary or make a new award.

1. The Commission will commence an award review on its own motion, pursuant to rule 3.2 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2022 (the Rules), once every three years.
2. This will be done by the Industrial Registrar giving notice to all parties recorded on the party card of an award or awards, pursuant to rule 6.7(5) of the Rules.
3. The matter will be initially listed for callover before the Commission or the Registrar on a date to be fixed by the Commission.
4. Any party wishing to appear in the award review proceedings must file a notice of appearance in accordance with the Rules.
5. At the callover the Commission will make directions that will ordinarily include the parties filing a document setting out their position as to the following:

(1) whether the awards identified in the notice should be considered together;

(2) whether the review should consider any other awards that apply to employees who perform the same or similar work for the same employer in the same part of the public service or government sector and who are covered by the same union(s) ("like employees"); and

(3) a list of issues the party considers ought to be dealt with as part of the s 19 review.

1. Following consideration of the position of the parties the Commission may determine to add one or more awards to the proceedings, or alternatively to split off one or more awards into separate s 19 review proceedings. If there is no consensus as to that issue the Commission may first conduct a short hearing to consider submissions before determining the issue.
2. In determining whether to review more than one award at the same time the Commission will have regard to whether the awards in question apply to like employees.
3. The Commission will require that the employer(s) provide the Commission with copies of any statutory determinations that set conditions of employment for any of the employees covered by an award being reviewed.
4. Having determined the awards to be reviewed together, the Commission will provide the parties with a draft list of issues to be addressed in the review and discuss with the parties in conciliation the most efficient means to conduct the review. The list of issues may be amended during the course of the review.
5. During the s 19 review process the Commission will ordinarily and in the order and manner that is considered most appropriate to the particular review:

(1) have the parties confirm their view as to the issues they consider ought to be considered in the review;

(2) have the parties identify any issue that the parties say involves substantive changes that ought to be addressed by a recommendation made by the Commission;

(3) seek the parties' views as to the extent to which any of the awards in question can be consolidated with each other and/or core conditions can be standardised in order to improve productivity and efficiency; and

(4) work through the identified issues to be addressed in conciliation, during which the Commission may propose changes to the award(s).

1. Before making or varying awards or making any recommendation(s) in light of the review, the Commission will provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on proposed draft awards and draft recommendations.
2. Where there are contested positions the Commission may conduct a short hearing before determining the outcome of the review.
3. It is not expected that evidence would ordinarily be required, as an award review is by its nature an exercise that focuses on the terms of the awards being reviewed having regard to what the Commission understands to be the nature of the industry, the history of the award, and any relevant test case standards or minimum conditions. Evidence may be required where there is a dispute as to the factual basis for determining whether an award is obsolete, or otherwise where a fact or facts in issue must be established to enable the Commission to exercise its powers under s 19.

1. In accordance with s 19(6), after considering submissions made by the parties, the Commission may make such changes to each award being reviewed as it considers necessary as a result of the review. Such changes include modifying or removing provisions of the award, consolidating a number of awards or rescinding obsolete awards.
2. The Commission may also make recommendations that address substantive changes to conditions that were not able to be resolved through the review process.
3. The Commission member will identify in the decision at the end of the review:

(1) contested issues involving substantive changes to terms and conditions of employment that the Commission considers need to be addressed for the award to be properly modernised and which were not addressed by the review, so they can be properly considered in subsequent arbitral proceedings;

(2) whether changes have been made to the award that promote productivity and efficiency and whether the Commission recommends such changes be taken into account in determining any future increase in remuneration; and

(3) whether the award needs to be examined to consider whether it contains gender-based undervaluation.

1. This Practice Note will be periodically reviewed by the President.

Parties are to use this standard award index during award review proceedings, if the award that is being reviewed deals with both salaries and conditions of employment.

Note: An award must have a nominal term that is not less than 12 months and not more than 3 years: Industrial Relations Act, s 16.

Note: An award should state the persons bound by the award pursuant to Industrial Relations Act, s 12: (1) all employees and employers to which it relates, (2) all employees and employers in the industry if it is an award that applies to a particular industry, and (3) all industrial organisations that were a party to the making of the award.

Note: An award must contain procedures for the resolution of industrial disputes under the award: Industrial Relations Act, s 14(1) unless the Commission is satisfied there is another award that does so.

3. Types of employment and termination of employment

Note: An award may specify on what basis an employee can be employed ie, full-time, part-time, casual, temporary etc.

Note: An award may specify how an employee's employment can be terminated. This could include provisions relating to a minimum notice period, redundancy entitlements etc.

Note: An award may provide a classification structure: see Crown Employees (Household Staff - Department of Education) Wages and Conditions Award 2022. The wage rates for classifications should be set out in a Schedule.

1. Allowances
2. Industry-specific payments
3. Wage packaging arrangements
4. Superannuation

Note: The NSW Public Sector and Local Government Employees Minimum Conditions of Employment (Superannuation) Award 2025 (Superannuation Award), which applies to all employees who can be covered by an award made by the Industrial Relations Commission and their employers, creates an obligation on an employer to make superannuation contributions for the benefit of an employee under Commonwealth superannuation legislation. The terms of a superannuation clause in an award can (without limiting the terms of the clause) note the existence of the employer's obligation under the Superannuation Award, replicate clauses 4.1-4.3 of the Superannuation Award, or provide additional superannuation entitlements. The interaction rules at 3.2 of the Superannuation Award apply to awards made under the Industrial Relations Act.

1. Hours of work
2. Overtime, weekend, public holiday rates
3. Shiftwork
4. Breaks

Note: An award may provide entitlements to breaks including meal breaks, rest breaks, and lactation breaks.

Note: An award may provide a procedure relating to how an employee's hours of work can be varied on a one-off, short or long-term basis, due to circumstances including personal reasons, community or family reasons, natural emergencies, major transport disruptions etc.

[1] See Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 (1998) 85 IR 38; [1998] NSWIRComm 661 at Annexure F.

[2] See the object at Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), s 3(b) which is a mandatory consideration pursuant to s 146(2)(a). See also s 19(4), which requires the Commission to take account of the effect of the awards on productivity and efficiency in the industry concerned.

[3] See Award Making Principle 11, at State Wage Case 2024 (No 4) (2024) NSWIRComm 25; (2024) 337 IR 182 at Annexure A.

[4] (1998) 85 IR 38; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

[5] Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 [1998] NSWIRComm 661; (1998) 85 IR 38 at 44; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

[6] Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 [1998] NSWIRComm 661; (1998) 85 IR 38 at 44; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

[7] Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 [1998] NSWIRComm 661; (1998) 85 IR 38 at 46; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

[8] See Award Review Principles 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 26.

[9] Hon Justice Richard Beasley, Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding, (April 2025) at [18.155].

[10] Hon Justice Richard Beasley, Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding, (April 2025) at [18.141].

[11] Hon Justice Richard Beasley, Special Commission of Inquiry into Healthcare Funding, (April 2025) at [18.142].

[12] Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), ss 11(1)(a), 52, 136.

[13] See Re Plain language drafting of modern awards [2022] FWCFB 177.

[14] [2025] NSWIRComm 17.

[15] See Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 344; Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 1612.

[16] Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2015] FWC 6555.

[17] Re 4 yearly review of modern awards [2017] FWCFB 1738.

[18] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 26(2)(g).

[19] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 747, 757E, 762.

[20] [2025] NSWIRComm 1071.

[21] State Wage Case 2024 (No 4) (2024) 337 IR 182; [2024] NSWIRComm 25.

[22] (2006) 150 IR 1; [2006] NSWIRComm 38.

[23] (2004) 129 IR 155; [2004] AIRC 287.

[24] [2004] AIRC 564; (2004) 134 IR 57.

[25] (1998) 78 IR 172; [1998] NSWIRComm 142.

[26] See, eg, Education (School Administrative and Support Staff) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 22(1), 23(1); Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW), s 71(2); Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), s 33C(2); Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW), s 52(2); Health Services Act 1997 (NSW), s 116A(1); Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 86(1); Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW), s 13(1); Transport Administration Act (NSW), s 68K(1).

[27] Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), s 19(2).