Award Review Principles Case 2025 (No 2) [2025] NSWIRComm 1101 (3 December 2025)

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

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

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 Personal Carer's/Leave Case 1998 (1998) 84 IR 416

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

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

State Working Hours Case 2003, Re (2003) 124 IR 253; [2003] NSWIRComm 86

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

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

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The Industrial Relations Commission first set principles to be applied to award review proceedings in Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 (1998) 85 IR 38; [1998] NSWIRComm 661. On 17 April 2025, the Commission issued on its own motion a summons to parties to show cause as to whether the Award Review Principles (Principles) should be retained and, if so, whether their form and content should be reviewed. These proceedings were the first time that the Principles had been reviewed since 1998. In Award Review Principles Case 2025 [2025] NSWIRComm 1089, this Full Bench published revised draft Principles and invited parties to make further submissions as to their content.

In this decision, this Full Bench publishes the Award Review Principles, Practice Note for Review of Awards, and Standard Award Index, which are to guide the conduct of award reviews under section19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).

1. In this decision, the Full Bench finalises the terms of the Award Review Principles (Principles), a Practice Note for Review of Awards (Practice Note) and Standard Award Index (Index), published as Annexures A, B and C to this decision.
2. In Award Review Principles Case 2025,[1] the Full Bench proposed draft Principles, attached as Annexure A to that decision, to guide the conduct of award reviews under s 19 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("IR Act"). These Principles replace those which were made by the Industrial Relations Commission in 1998.[2] In addition to the draft Principles, this Full Bench published a draft Practice Note for the review of awards and a draft Index, attached as Annexures B and C to its decision.
3. The parties were directed to provide submissions as to the content of the draft Principles, Practice Note, and Index. In particular, the parties were asked to address the content of paragraphs [12] and [13] of the draft Principles, regarding the test cases that ought to be included in the Principles and the content of any test case clauses.
4. Submissions were filed by:

(1) Australian Paramedics Association (APA);

(2) Industrial Relations Secretary, Transport Secretary, Health Secretary, Fire and Rescue NSW, Commissioner of Police, and Secretary of the Department of Education jointly (the Secretaries);

(3) Local Government NSW (LGNSW); and

(4) Unions NSW on behalf of its union affiliates.

1. With the benefit of the parties' submissions, we have determined to make minor changes to the draft Principles, Practice Note and Index. This decision explains the nature of those changes. Attached to this decision are the final form of the Principles and Index. Also attached is a Practice Note which the President intends to make, which may be updated from time to time.

"When conducting [a s 19 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."

1. Unions NSW submitted that principle 2 should refer to the objectives in s 3 of the IR Act.
2. There is no need to specifically refer to the objects in s 3 as they are already included within the mandatory considerations in s 146(2)(a) of the IR Act.

"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."

1. Unions NSW submitted that principle 3 should be amended to state that "awards that no longer apply to anyone and are not expected to apply to anyone in the foreseeable future" will be rescinded in a s 19 review. This was said to be consistent with draft principle 18, which states that an "obsolete" award should 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".
2. We accept that the current expression "rescind awards that no longer apply to anyone" does not adequately reflect the notion of what is an obsolete award, which is addressed by principle 18. Rather than adopting the suggested wording however, we will amend the expression to read: "rescind awards that are obsolete".

1. Unions NSW submitted that draft principle 4, which states that an award review "should not reduce existing conditions of employment", should be amended to state that an award review "will not reduce existing conditions of employment", on the basis that a s 19 review is not a vehicle to pursue substantive changes to terms and conditions.
2. We are not minded to make the suggested change. The current language is intended to express the objective of a review, rather than adopting the language of an absolute rule. As drafted it allows the possibility that a particular condition might be reduced or removed for all or a subset of employees on the basis that overall there is no reduction in conditions of employment. For example, a series of allowances that apply in similar circumstances might be removed and replaced by a new all-purpose allowance that leaves employees no worse off overall.

"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."

1. The Secretaries sought two alterations to (b) and (c). The first is that (b) should be amended to say that test case minima should be "taken into account" during an award review, rather than that awards should be reviewed to "reflect" test case minima, to be consistent with draft principle 14 which requires test case standards to "be taken into account" during an award review.
2. The second is that the words "equivalent work" should be substituted for "comparable work" in (c), to ensure that any review pursuant to this draft principle is undertaken with respect to a federal award which applies to the same, or substantially similar, work to the relevant public sector cohort.
3. As to the first proposed change, the fact that draft principle 14 uses the expression "taking account of" test cases does not mean that the same language should be replicated in draft principle 5(b), which establishes an exception that permits a party in an award review to seek substantive change other than by consent. An award review may also have regard to test cases for broader purposes, as contemplated by draft principle 14. We agree, however, that the language in draft principle 5(b) should be amended. We will delete the words "ensure that they" so the provision will commence with "to the extent necessary to reflect test case and statutory minima ...".
4. We agree that the second proposed change should be made to draft principle 5(c) for the reason expressed by the Secretaries.

1. Draft principle 7 provides that the Commission will consider statutory determinations during an award review, and that 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 the term should not be included in the award.
2. Unions NSW submitted that it could be burdensome for parties to establish a "good reason" for why a term is not included in an award, especially in sectors like education where most terms and conditions are found in statutory determinations. It was also on this basis that it was submitted that it would not be appropriate for awards covering such sectors to be reordered in a standard index format under draft principle 8. Unions NSW proposed that principle 7 should be redrafted to apply only where parties disagree on whether a statutory determination should be considered during an award review or whether an award should deal with a subject matter that is addressed by a determination.
3. LGNSW contended that local government awards are dissimilar to other awards that are made by this Commission, as local government awards are all minimum rates awards (rather than paid rates awards) and are mostly skill-based awards (instead of classification-based awards). It expressed concerns that the Full Bench believed that there would be utility in reordering award terms due to a misconceived "generalisation" that local government awards are similar to public service and government sector awards and thus sought to amend draft principle 8 to have no application to local government awards.
4. The test of needing a "good reason" not to incorporate determinations or reorder an award is not onerous. It does no more than create a rebuttable presumption in favour of such incorporation and reordering. However, we accept that the adjective "good" does not add anything of consequence and will be removed from draft principles 7 and 8. This makes it clear that the preferred course is to incorporate determinations or reorder an award, unless there is a reason not to do so.
5. In the interests of stylistic consistency, we have determined to make further minor amendments to draft principle 8, which will read as follows: "Unless the Commission considers there is a reason not to do so, it will reorder awards to follow the standard index format attached to these Principles."
6. In light of the amendments we have determined to make, we are not persuaded that draft principle 8 should be amended to exclude local government awards.

"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."

1. Unions NSW proposed that the following sentences should be added to the principle:

"(a) If a party raises with the Commission that the redrafting of the award could lead to a substantive change to existing terms and conditions of employment, the Commission will consider whether the proposed redraft is more appropriately dealt with in accordance with (11) below.

(b) When considering whether a term of an award is ambiguous or imprecise, the Commission will consider whether there is a genuine contest between the parties as to the meaning or practical effect of the term."

1. The first proposed sentence is intended to recognise the risk of substantive changes being made to existing terms and conditions due to plain language redrafting and to draw the parties' attention to the procedure in principle 11 in such circumstances.
2. The second proposed sentence is directed to encouraging the Commission to avoid redrafting an award term where "parties to the award have mutually adopted the same assumption as to its practical operation", even if that term is ambiguous or imprecise.
3. Both suggested changes are consistent with the draft Principles. We are content to add them for the reasons identified. We will adopt the second paragraph (b) with a minor change, replacing the words "will consider" with the words "will take into account". If the award is ambiguous or imprecise on its face but the parties have a settled understanding of its meaning it is ordinarily preferable to amend the clause to reflect that position rather than leave it in unclear terms that require future readers to identify the earlier settled understanding.

1. Draft principles 11 and 12 create a mechanism whereby the Commission member presiding over award review proceedings can identify issues which, while falling outside the scope of a s 19 review, ought to be addressed in subsequent proceedings:

"(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."

1. Unions NSW recommended that an additional sentence be added to the end of draft principle 11: "The Commission will hear from the parties regarding the content of any recommendation." It is submitted that amendment is consistent with paragraph 16 of the proposed Practice Note: "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. The Secretaries submitted that draft principle 12 should be reworded to ensure that the Commission exercises caution when making such recommendations, given that the subject of those recommendations is likely to only have been addressed by the parties at a high level and without the tendering of lay or expert evidence. The Secretaries' proposed wording is as follows:

"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 ought to make a recommendation recommends that they ought to be taken into account in determining a future increase in remuneration." (Emphasis added to indicate insertion, strikethrough to indicate deletion.)

1. As to the change suggested by Unions NSW, we agree that draft principle 11 would be improved by the suggested change for the reasons given.
2. As to the Secretaries' submission, while we agree that the Commission would exercise caution when making such recommendations and only do so where the Commission is satisfied that they should be made, we are not persuaded that the suggested change to the text needs be made. While the Commission will have regard to such a recommendation in any subsequent proceedings, it is not binding, and a different conclusion may be reached following a considered examination of the evidence.

1. The Secretaries and APA agreed that the Principles should include a list of test cases and provided a list of test cases that ought to be included. LGNSW queried the usefulness of a list of dated test cases and noted the difficulty of extracting the relevant clause from a test case but also provided a list of test cases if the Commission maintained that they should be identified in the Principles.
2. The list of test cases provided by the Secretaries, APA and LGNSW were identical, and are as follows:

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

(2) State Personal Carer's/Leave Case 1998 (1998) 84 IR 416;

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

(4) State Working Hours Case 2003, Re (2003) 124 IR 253; [2003] NSWIRComm 86;

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

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

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

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

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

1. The APA summarised the clauses which could be drawn from these test cases as:

"i. Casual conversion clause

ii. Occupational health and safety clause

iii. Reasonable overtime clause

iv. Termination of employment clause

v. Redundancy clause

vi. Minimum conditions for part-time work agreements principles

vii. Bereavement leave clause

viii. Personal/Carers leave clause (i.e. use of sick leave, annual leave, unpaid leave for family purpose, time off in lieu of payment of overtime, make-up time and rostered days off)"

1. As an alternative to draft principles 14 and 15, LGNSW proposed the insertion of a principle which would require the Commission to consider and ensure that test case standards established or revised by a Full Bench are incorporated or accounted for in the award under review. It was submitted that as principle 5 of the Award Making Principles creates a presumption that test case standards are incorporated into an award on application,[3] the Commission could presume that test case standards have been incorporated into the award under review, and that the award review process should account for changes to test case standards or new test case standards since the award was last made or varied.
2. Unions NSW also considered that a reference to dated test cases in the Principles would not improve the efficiency or outcomes of a s 19 review. Affiliates to Unions NSW were said to have raised concerns that the conditions in the test case clauses are inconsistent with, and sometimes lower than, existing conditions in awards, statutory determinations or equivalent conditions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Unions NSW supported a more "flexible" approach that puts responsibility on parties to raise relevant cases. It also did not oppose the creation of a schedule of clauses drawn from the test cases and reviewed to be made consistent with current award and statutory entitlements but considered that to be a "complicated project that requires input from interested parties beyond the scope of the present submission".
3. We have considered the submissions of the parties and have determined to include the agreed list of test cases. In doing so, we acknowledge that identifying test case clauses is a more complex exercise and likely beyond the scope of this process.

1. Draft principle 16 defines an "obsolete provision" of an award referred to in s 19(3)(f) of the IR Act as a "provision that covers circumstances which no longer apply to any employees". Draft principle 18 defines an obsolete award as one that "does not set conditions that apply to any employees" and "is not expected to do so in the foreseeable future" and states that it ought to be rescinded.
2. Unions NSW submitted that an obsolete provision should be defined as a provision that "covers circumstances which no longer apply to any employees and are not expected to apply to anyone in the foreseeable future", to reflect the definition of an obsolete award in draft principle 18.
3. The Secretaries submitted that the adjective "obsolete" should refer to a provision or award that, in addition to the definitions in draft principles 16 and 18, "serves no current purpose". That is due to limited circumstances in which an award no longer applies to any employees but is the underlying award for employees who are covered by an enterprise agreement against which the terms of the enterprise agreement are assessed. In support of the proposed wording, the Secretaries cited Crown Medical Employees (Medical Officers) Award 2022[4] at [13] in which Taylor J stated that awards that "do not serve any current purpose should not be maintained".
4. We agree with the submissions of Unions NSW and the Secretaries and will amend draft principle 16 in the manner proposed by the Secretaries. While the existing draft text would achieve the same purpose the proposed text better expresses its intended effect.
5. We accept that it is possible that a clause might not apply to any current employee but nevertheless should be maintained because it can be expected to apply in the future (eg a clause that applies to international deployments in circumstances where no current employee is deployed internationally, but they may be in the future). The change we will make addresses that circumstance, given that "any current purpose" would capture a current purpose to set conditions that are expected to have application in the future.
6. We will also amend Principle 3 to use the defined expression, replacing the expression 'redundant provisions' with 'obsolete provisions'.

1. Draft principle 19 provides that an award is not obsolete only by the fact that it covers a small number of employees. Unions NSW proposes that the principle should, in addition, clarify that an award is not obsolete only because it has not been recently amended.
2. In Award Review Principles Case 2025 at [130]-[131], this Full Bench resolved to delete the presumption in principle 23 that an award may be obsolete where no application to vary it has been made for five years or more.
3. We agree with the suggested change by Unions NSW for the reasons it has provided. There are awards that set conditions but not salaries and such awards may not be amended for a number of years. They are not, for that reason alone, obsolete.

1. Unions NSW proposed that the Principles should define "modernise" (as it is used in s 19(2)) as "to bring the award up to date and make it contemporary". This definition was given by the Full Bench in Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998,[5] but not included in the 1998 Principles.
2. We accept there is some utility in maintaining the non-exhaustive definition by adding to the Principles the following: "To 'modernise' an award includes to bring it up to date and make it contemporary."

1. Unions NSW proposed two amendments to the draft Practice Note.
2. Paragraph 10 sets out the usual directions the Commission will make at the initial call over, including a direction for the parties to file a document setting out their position on a list of issues they consider should be dealt with as part of the review. The first proposal was for this direction to refer the parties to the mandatory considerations in s 19(3) and (4) when preparing such a list of issues.
3. Paragraph 20 states that, after considering the parties' submissions, the Commission may "make recommendations that address substantive changes to conditions that were not able to be resolved through the review process". The second amendment proposed by Unions NSW was for this paragraph to be rewritten to make clear that the recommendations do not represent a concluded view on substantive amendments, given the lack of formal evidence in s 19 review proceedings.
4. We do not agree that the first change is necessary. It is a matter for the parties to determine what issues they seek to advance, and they will do so by reference to various matters. There is no need to give prominence to the mandatory considerations.
5. As to the second proposed change, we accept the substance of the concern. Such recommendations will ordinarily be directed to identifying matters that should be considered in future proceedings, rather than recommendations as to specific outcomes. Rather than adopting the suggested change, we consider it preferable to make express reference to draft principle 11, so that paragraph 20 of the draft Practice Note will read:

"After considering the parties' submissions, the Commission may also make recommendations that address how substantive changes to conditions that were not able to be resolved through the review process should be addressed in accordance with principle 11."

1. Unions NSW suggested the addition of four headings in the index:

"(a) Progression;

(b) Flexibility Arrangements;

(c) Work, Health and Safety; and

(d) Union Matters."

1. No further reasons were provided for the inclusion of these headings.
2. The award index is not intended to be read as a complete list of the award clauses that might be found in an award. Accordingly, the absence of a particular heading is not to be understood as indicating that an award should not continue to contain a clause dealing with such a subject.
3. As to the need to add a separate clause heading 'progression', we note that such clauses usually contain terms that set out how employees move from one classification to another. Such provisions are usually to be found in the classifications clause but sometimes are part of the salaries clause, and occasionally are standalone clauses. We do not see a need to include 'progression' in the proposed index as a standalone clause. Where such a clause is included it would most obviously become part of the classifications clause. We have amended the note under the heading 'classifications' to reflect that fact.
4. As to the proposal to include in the index a 'flexibility arrangements' clause heading, we note that not all awards contain such provisions. Where they do, they are often subclauses of a clause that deals with a wider entitlement, in particular hours of work. Proposed clause 18 in the Index ("Variation of hours of work") already contemplates flexible work arrangements. The note to that clause reads: "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." In light of those matters, we consider that it is unnecessary to include the clause heading in the award index. This is not to suggest however that relevant clauses ought not contain such arrangements.
5. As to the further clause headings 'work, health and safety' and 'union matters', we accept they are standard standalone clauses found in many awards and it would be appropriate to include them in the award index. The attached award index has been amended accordingly. We have placed them both at the end of the index under the heading 'Other'. We have also deleted the unnecessary word 'Miscellaneous' from that heading.

(1) Pursuant to s 51(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), the Commission orders that the Commission's Award Review Principles shall be as set out in Annexure A of this decision and shall operate on and from today.

(2) The Award Review Principles in Annexure A of this decision supersede the Principles for Review of Awards in Annexure F of Principles for Review of Awards - State Decision 1998 (1998) 85 IR 38; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

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

(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 obsolete provisions, to standardise conditions and consolidate awards where appropriate and to rescind awards that are obsolete.

(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 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 equivalent 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 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 the Commission considers there is a reason not to do so, it will reorder awards 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.

(a) If a party raises with the Commission that the redrafting of the award could lead to a substantive change to existing terms and conditions of employment, the Commission will consider whether the proposed redraft is more appropriately dealt with in accordance with (11) below.

(b) When considering whether a term of an award is ambiguous or imprecise, the Commission will take into account whether there is a genuine contest between the parties as to the meaning or practical effect of the term.

(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. The Commission will hear from the parties regarding the content of any recommendation.

(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:

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

(b) State Personal Carer's/Leave Case 1998 (1998) 84 IR 416 ;

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

(d) State Working Hours Case 2003, Re (2003) 124 IR 253; [2003] NSWIRComm 86;

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

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

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

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

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

(15) To 'modernise' an award includes to bring it up to date and make it contemporary.

(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 and which serves no current purpose.

(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, and which serves no current purpose.

(19) An award which covers only a small number of employees or which has not been recently amended is not, by those facts alone, obsolete.

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.[6]
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. After considering the parties' submissions, the Commission may also make recommendations that address how substantive changes to conditions that were not able to be resolved through the review process should be addressed in accordance with principle 11.
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 and contain provisions for progression: 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] [2025] NSWIRComm 1089.

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

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

[4] [2025] NSWIRComm 14.

[5] [1998] NSWIRComm 661; (1998) 85 IR 38 at 44; [1998] NSWIRComm 661.

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