5 Tips: Performance conversations amid mental health challenges

Navigating performance conversations can already be tricky and complicated. What happens when we add in mental health or personal stressors for a staff member?

We’re often asked by leaders, “can I still performance manage someone when there is a mental health or personal stressor present?” The short answer is yes, with careful consideration and planning.

The leader AND the staff member will play active roles in working together to conceive and implement solutions. This will also likely include input and collaboration with a treating medical practitioner.

For example, it is a leader’s role to listen, be supportive, actively seek understanding, enquire about health and wellbeing and discuss workplace supports. It is not a leader’s role to provide counselling, diagnosis or unsolicited advice about solving personal challenges or navigating a mental health condition.

An effective resolution requires the leader to understand and be concerned for the situation of the individual whilst at the same time be clear about job requirements and expectations.

It is an easy trap to make assumptions about what mental health condition someone has, how that impacts their capacity, or how that should be experienced in the workplace. Only a medical professional can provide a diagnosis and to work with the individual staff member to advise how a mental health condition or personal stressor impacts on their capacity at work. Reasonable adjustments are to be considered based on the inherent requirements of the role.

Be up to date with and incorporate the current legislation and codes of practice. Examples include Workplace Health & Safety Legislation, relevant state-based Code of Practice for managing psychosocial risks, Fair Work Act, Anti-Discrimination Act.

Mapien’s national team have a combination of IR, HR, psychology and psychological health and safety experience to offer bespoke workplace solutions.

If you would like to know more about navigating performance conversations amid mental health challenges, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

Learn more about how to approach performance conversations when mental health or personal issues show up at Mapien’s one-day workshop.

Balancing performance management and mental health

Waitlists are also open for our February 2025 workshops in Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne and Sydney.

Commencing January 1, 2025, Australian businesses will be subject to the further workplace changes as a result of The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023 (Cth), particularly concerning the intentional underpayment of wages.

These changes, aimed at protecting employee rights, will result in harsh new penalties, making it a criminal offence for employers who deliberately underpay their workers.

As businesses prepare for this new legal landscape, it is crucial to understand the implications and ensure compliance to avoid severe penalties.

Under the revised Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Employers will commit a criminal offence if they intentionally fail to pay employees the amounts owed under the Fair Work Act or applicable industrial instrument, including wages and superannuation on or before the date they are due to be paid.

The offence applies only to underpayments occurring after the provisions take effect, even if the conduct began earlier than 1 January 2025.

With the focus strictly on intentional misconduct, where it is determined that employers have unintentionally underpaid their employees or made payment errors by mistake, they will not subject to these criminal penalties.

The new amendments encourage employers to self-report potential wage theft through “safe haven” provisions. These provisions allow employers to disclose their conduct to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and enter into a “cooperation agreement.”  If such an agreement is made, the FWO may refrain from referring the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) or the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for prosecution. However, it’s important to note that the FWO retains full discretion over whether to offer a cooperation agreement and entering into one does not shield the employer from civil proceedings.

The penalties for non-compliance are severe and vary depending on whether the underpayment is by a company or an individual:

• For Companies: The penalty is the greater of three times the underpayment amount or up to $7.825 million. If the underpayment amount cannot be determined, the default penalty is $7.825 million.
• For Individuals: In the most severe cases individuals face a maximum of 10 years in prison. Financial penalties include the greater of three times the underpayment amount or $1.565 If the underpayment amount cannot be determined, the default penalty is $1.565 million.

The Fair Work Ombudsman will be responsible for investigating suspected underpayment offences, ensuring that the new laws are enforced. In the absence of any “cooperation agreement” the FWO may refer the conduct to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) or the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for prosecution.

These upcoming changes represent a significant shift in how wage compliance is regulated in Australia. For businesses, the implications are far-reaching:

1. Increased Compliance Costs: Companies will need to invest in stronger payroll systems and processes to ensure accurate and timely payment of wages and superannuation. Regular audits and reviews will become essential to avoid potential legal risks.
2. Risk of Severe Penalties: The financial penalties for non-compliance are substantial. Businesses must be diligent in adhering to wage laws to avoid criminal charges and the associated penalties.
3. Greater Scrutiny: With the Fair Work Ombudsman actively investigating underpayment cases, businesses can expect increased scrutiny of their payroll practices. Proactive compliance measures will be necessary to prevent investigations.
4. Reputation Management: Beyond legal penalties, businesses found guilty of intentional underpayment may suffer significant reputational damage, affecting customer trust and engagement, and employee morale. Ensuring transparent and fair wage practices are essential in maintaining a positive brand image.

The criminalisation of intentional wage underpayments underscores the Australian government’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights. For businesses, this change necessitates a thorough review of payroll practices and an investment in compliance infrastructure.

By taking proactive steps now, companies can safeguard against the severe penalties coming into effect in 2025 and ensure they remain compliant with the evolving legal landscape.

If you would like to know more about your responsibility as an employer and the rules that apply, please contact us at hello@mapien.com.au and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Act 2024 has introduced significant changes that are already in effect, with more to come on 26 August 2024. These amendments have substantial implications for businesses across various industries. It’s crucial for employers to stay informed about these changes and understand how they may impact daily operations.

In this article, we delve into the upcoming amendments, offering a comprehensive overview of the changes on the horizon. By understanding these updates, businesses can better prepare for the transition and ensure compliance with the new legal requirements.

From 26 August, eligible employees will gain the ‘right to disconnect,’ allowing them to step away from work-related communications outside their regular working hours.

This will also be reflected in all Awards that affect non-small business employers. Included in the Award updates will be specific rules explaining how the right to disconnect will operate across different industries and jobs. Furthermore, the right to disconnect will be considered a workplace right and protected under general protection laws. For small business employers, this change will take effect from 26 August 2025.

What does this mean for Employers?

Employers will still have the ability to contact employees outside of normal working hours for specific reasons, however employees now have the right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from employers or third parties outside their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable.

To determine whether a refusal is unreasonable, employers will need to consider a number of factors including the reason behind the contact, whether the employee is being remunerated for the contact, or are working additional hours outside their ordinary hours. The nature of the role’s responsibility and any personal circumstances should also be taken into consideration when determining reasonableness. Any dispute relating to an employee’s right to disconnect should in the first instance be attempted to be resolved at the workplace level however either party may utilise the service of the Fair Work Commission to help resolve the dispute.

A new ‘ordinary meaning’ of the terms employee and employer will be introduced into the Fair Work Act 2009. The new definition of ‘employee’ has been added to provide greater clarity in establishing whether a person is an employee or independent contractor.

What does this mean for Employers?

In determining whether an individual is an employee, employers must consider the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the working relationship as well as all parts of the working relationship between both parties.

This will depart from the previous test that focused on the terms of a contract. Under the new definition, some working relationships may be categorised differently and therefore different rights apply to those impacted. There will also be changes for independent contractors, such as minimum standards for employee-like workers and provisions around unfair contract terms.

This change also aims to clarify defences in cases of sham contracting. The previous requisite ‘recklessness’ test that had to be established for a defence against sham contracting has been replaced by a test of ‘reasonableness’. To defend a sham contracting claim, an employer must now prove that at the time the representation was made they reasonably believed the worker was engaged as a contractor.

Contractors will also now have the ability to apply to the Fair Work Commission where they believe there is an unfair contract term in their services contract. The Commission will have the power to decide if a service contract contains unfair terms and amend or vary any parts of the contract containing these. This remedy is only available where there is a ‘constitutional connection’ (such as performing work under a services contract for a constitutional corporation). The remedy will also be unavailable to contractors that earn above what will be the contractor high income threshold.

A new framework for minimum standards has also been set up to safeguard independent ‘employee like workers’ and contractors working on digital labour platforms and the road transport industry. To be considered for the purpose of these minimum standards, the person must be a party to a services contract, perform all (or a significant majority) of the work under the services contract and not perform any work under the services contract as an employee. These minimum standards also provide those covered with access to collective bargaining and representation by workplace delegates.

The minimum standards will allow the Fair Work Commission to implement orders and guidelines over payments, insurance and deductions. They can also implement road transport contractual orders and guidelines around payment times, fuel levies, rate reviews, termination and cost recovery. The Commission can also deal with disputes over unfair deactivation or termination.

Under these changes, a new definition of ‘casual employee’ will be added to the Fair Work Act 2009. Under this definition, an employee will only be casual where there is no firm advanced commitment to continuing and indefinite work, taking into consideration the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship and where the employee is entitled to receive a casual loading or specific casual pay rate.

There are also changes to how casual conversion occurs. Casual employees can now notify their employer that they wish to convert to permanent employment where they have  been employed for at least 6 months (or 12 months if working for a small business employer) and believe they no longer meet the requirements of the new casual employee definition.

What does this mean for Employers?

With regard to determining the casual employment relationship, employers must consider:

• whether there is a firm advanced commitment to continuing and indefinite work;
• the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship; and
• if the employee is entitled to receive a casual loading or specific casual pay rate.

Regarding casual conversion requests, employers must consult with the employee and provide an answer within 21 days of the employee providing notification of their request to convert.

Where the conversion is accepted, the employer must then provide the employee with information that stipulates:

• the new employment status (part-time or full-time)
• the employee’s new hours of work, and
• when the change will take effect

Employers may refuse a request for casual conversion where the employee still meets the definition of a casual or there are fair and reasonable grounds for not accepting the notification.

Employers must also now provide all casual employees with a Casual Employment Information Statement that outlines information about employment conditions. This will need to be provided to new employees before or as soon as possible after the start of their employment. Non-small businesses will also have to provide these to casuals at the 6 month and 12-month marks of employment and then on every subsequent 12 months of employment and small businesses 12 months after employment.

Employers must carefully review the changes introduced by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Act 2024 and determine if their operations need adjustments to remain compliant. Among these changes, the right to disconnect is expected to have the most significant impact on employers moving forward. Small business employers, in particular, should stay aware of the additional changes set to take effect in November 2024 and early 2025.

If you would like to know more about the changes taking effect on 26 August, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

Commencing 26 August 2024 (26 February 2025 for small businesses), the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) will introduce important changes relating to casual employment. These changes form part of the second phase of the Federal Government’s Closing Loopholes reforms having received Royal Ascent earlier this year. These changes include a new definition of casual employment, updated rules for converting casual employment to permanent status, and revised requirements for providing the Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS).

The new definition of casual employment will focus on the practical reality of the employment relationship, rather than just the terms outlined in the employment contract.

Under this new definition, an employee will only be considered a casual if:

• there is no firm advanced commitment to continuing and indefinite work, taking into account a number of factors, including the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship,
• they’re entitled to receive a casual loading or specific casual pay rate.

In other words, there is a greater requirement under the new definition, to look  beyond the paperwork to see how the actual working relationship plays out.  The Act will also be amended to include a list of factors to assist in determining whether a commitment exists.

Once the new definition takes effect, employers are not required to convert current casual employees who no longer meet the casual definition, to permanent employment. Employees who are casual, will remain casual until their employment status changes either through:

• a conversion process or Fair Work Commission order, or
• the employee accepting an alternative employment offer and starting work on that basis.

The Act removes the existing casual conversion provisions and replaces it with an “employee choice” framework. The provisions remove the onus on the employer to offer casual conversion and instead places the requirement on the employee to request conversion. Casual employees who believe they no longer meet the requirements to be classified as a casual employee may now give an employer written notification requesting to change their employment status to permanent employment after 6 months’ employment, or 12 months for small businesses.

However, employees cannot notify their employer of their intention to convert to permanent employment if they:

• are currently engaged in an ongoing dispute with their employer about casual conversion, or
• in the last 6 months:
  • their employer refused a previous notification,
  • they’ve resolved a dispute with their employer about casual conversion.

The CEIS outlines employment conditions and must be given to all new casual employees. The CEIS should now be provided:

• To new casual employees before or shortly after they start their job.
• To casual employees in non-small businesses as soon as possible after 6 months and 12 months of employment, and then every 12 months thereafter.
• To casual employees in small businesses as soon as possible after 12 months of employment.

1. It’s crucial to clearly communicate casual employment status in contracts and all interactions with employees. Including providing the CEIS.
2. The duty to request conversion from casual to permanent employment now lies with employees, but employers must still ensure correct classification of employment status.
3. Employers must fulfil current obligations, including offering conversion, until the new rules take effect.

If you would like to know more about the changes to casual employment, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

The Pilbara region of Western Australia, a powerhouse of the global iron ore industry, is currently embroiled in a significant industrial relations (IR) shift.

The Secure Jobs legislation introduced earlier this year has significantly changed the dynamics of collective bargaining. It has enabled unions to force employers to negotiate in circumstances where they may not have the support of a majority of employees. The Pilbara has emerged as a key battleground where major mining companies, such as BHP, are facing union-driven demands for significant pay increases and the negotiation of collective agreements for the first time in many years.

The IR reforms introduced by the Federal Government sought to strengthen the power of unions to initiate collective bargaining across various industries. A key feature of these laws is the provision that compels employers to bargain with unions even where such bargaining is not supported by a majority of the workforce. This change was intended by the Government to address perceived power imbalances and ensure that workers’ interests are more effectively represented, particularly in industries where union representation has been traditionally weak.

However, this legal shift has not been welcomed by all. Mining companies argue that the new laws create a “deliberate loophole” that unions are exploiting to push for collective agreements, even in cases where the majority of workers may not support such actions. This has led to a tense standoff in the Pilbara, where companies like BHP have been forced to collectively bargain with unions.

1) Representation Without Majority Support

The most contentious issue is the unions’ ability to begin collective bargaining without demonstrating majority support from the workforce. Employers believe that this undermines the principle of democratic representation within the workplace. They contend that it allows unions to negotiate on behalf of employees who may not actually support their agenda or claims, potentially leading to outcomes that do not reflect the true wishes of the workforce, disrupting workplace harmony and efficiency.

2) Economic Implications:

The Pilbara is a critical region for Australia’s economy, producing vast quantities of iron ore that are exported worldwide. Mining employers worry that union-driven demands for higher wages could significantly increase their operating costs. In a global market where margins can be tight, any rise in labour costs could reduce their competitiveness, impact profitability, and potentially lead to job losses if they are forced to cut costs.

3) Strategic and Legal Responses:

In response to these challenges, employers are exploring various legal and strategic avenues. Some are considering court challenges arguing that the laws violate principles of fair representation and workplace democracy. Others may seek to lobby for legislative amendments to close what they perceive as loopholes that give unions disproportionate power in negotiations.

4) Impact on Industrial Relations:

These new laws have the potential to reshape the landscape of industrial relations in Australia. This is particularly the case in industries such as mining where union influence has been limited in recent times. Employers hold real concerns that these changes could lead to more frequent and intense industrial action, including strikes, as unions seek to leverage their new bargaining power. This could create an unstable labour environment, with potential disruptions to production and supply chains.

The current negotiations between BHP and the unions in the Pilbara are more than just a local dispute – they are a test case for the new IR laws and their broader implications. The outcome of these negotiations could set a precedent for other industries, particularly those where union representation is weak or contested.

• For Employers: The stakes are high. A union victory in the Pilbara will embolden unions across other sectors to pursue similar strategies, leading to widespread changes in industrial relations practices. Employers fear that this could lead to increased costs, reduced operational flexibility, and a more adversarial workplace environment.
• For Unions: A successful negotiation would represent a significant win, demonstrating the effectiveness of the new laws and potentially leading to increased union membership. It would also signal a shift in the balance of power in favour of unions, which have historically struggled to gain traction in some organisations.
• For the Workforce: The situation is complex. The extent of actual employee support for the unions’ actions is a critical factor that remains somewhat unclear. While some employees may welcome the prospect of higher wages and better conditions, others may be wary of the potential for increased union influence and the risks of industrial action on their wages.

The Pilbara is a crucial test of the new Federal IR laws and the impact on Australian industry. For the mining companies, like BHP, this is a moment of reckoning, as they navigate the challenges posed by union-driven collective bargaining in a highly strategic and economically significant sector. For the unions, it represents an opportunity to regain their influence in an industry where they have historically struggled to gain a foothold.

The outcome of these negotiations will likely have far-reaching implications. Much will depend on whether the unions are able to achieve higher wages and better conditions. If so, it will likely lead to similar strategies across Australia. Whatever the outcome, what is clear is that the Pilbara will play a pivotal role in shaping industrial relations strategies for the future.

If you would like to know more, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

On 26 August 2024, employees in businesses with 15 or more employees will have a “right to disconnect”. This right empowers employees to disengage from work-related communications from their employer or third-parties outside their working hours. For employers, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity to revisit out-of-hours expectations and foster a healthier work-life balance within their organisations.

The right to disconnect grants employees an enforceable right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact – be it via phone, email, text or messaging platforms – outside their working hours, unless such a refusal is unreasonable.

Importantly, this right does not prevent employers from contacting employees out-of-hours. For example, while it remains permissible to send emails to employees outside their usual working hours, the right to disconnect means employees are under no obligation to monitor or respond to those emails unless it would be unreasonable not to do so.

The challenge for employers lies in determining what qualifies as “reasonable” versus “unreasonable” contact.

Assessing whether a refusal to engage outside of working hours is unreasonable will depend on a variety of factors, including:

• The reason for the contact or attempted contact;
• The nature of the contact and the level of disruption it causes to the employee;
• The extent of compensation provided to the employee for being available or performing additional work outside of regular hours;
• The nature of the employee’s role and level of responsibility;
• The employee’s personal circumstances, including family or caregiving responsibilities.

Disputes over the reasonableness of out-of-hours contact should ideally be resolved internally, through open discussions between the employer and employee. However, if these discussions do not lead to a resolution, either party may seek intervention from the Fair Work Commission.

Employers may request an order to address an employee’s refusal to engage outside of working hours if it is deemed unreasonable. Conversely, employees may seek orders to prevent what they consider unreasonable contact from their employer outside their working hours. The Fair Work Commission will assess each case on its merits and may issue orders to address unreasonable refusals or contact as necessary.

As 26 August 2024 approaches, it is essential for employers to ensure their practices are in line with the right to disconnect. To prepare effectively, the following steps should be considered:

• Consider their Operational Requirements: Whilst many roles will not require out of hours contact with the employee performing it, some will. For example, an employer who operates nationally or internationally may have requirements that employees are contactable during business hours in time-zones other than that in which the employee is performing the work. Alternatively, where an employer operates continuous production, it may be necessary for employees on a preceding shift to be contactable to manage issues that carry over the shift change.
• Engage with Employees: Initiate conversations about working hours, expectations and how the right to disconnect will be implemented within your organisation. These discussions can help clarify what constitutes “reasonable” and “unreasonable” contact.
• Review Employment Contracts & Position Descriptions: Ensure these documents accurately reflect the requirements and expectations regarding contact outside of working hours.
• Update or Develop Policies: Revise or develop new policies which adequately deal with expectations regarding out-of-hours contact.
• Educate Managers: Ensure managers are educated on the nuances of the right to disconnect, including the difference between reasonable and unreasonable contact, to minimise the risk of adverse action claims.
• Manage Third-Party Expectations: Consider how to manage client, contractor, supplier and other third-party expectations in relation to out-of-hours contact. Adjust service delivery agreements or other external commitments, as necessary, to align with such expectations.

If you would like further guidance or advice regarding the impact of this new right on your organisation, we encourage you to speak with your Mapien consultant. Alternatively, please contact us and one of our Workplace Strategists will be in touch within 24 hours.

Organizations often focus their leaders on team building within their functional teams while neglecting the formation of a healthy leadership team culture and dynamics. This oversight can lead to misalignment and missed opportunities for strategic growth.

At the recent HRD Australia HR Summit Melbourne, I had the privilege of moderating several expert panels that delved into current challenges for Leaders & HR professionals. One of the key topics discussed was “How to Create a High Performing Leadership Team,” featuring insights from expert People leaders Kristen Bugeja , Meredith Crowe , Carl Phillips and Antoinette Battista. The panel highlighted best practices for fostering collaboration, enhancing communication, and establishing trust among team members. Our panellists shared their experiences in aligning leadership objectives with organizational goals, thereby driving performance and creating a culture that nurtures both personal and collective achievement. These discussions underscored the importance of intentional leadership team dynamics as a foundational element for sustainable success in any organization.

The emphasis by Kristen Bugeja on the need for support and energy from peers, rather than solely relying on direct reports, truly resonated with me during our discussions at the HRD HR Summit. I had the opportunity to share her insightful observations in our Senior Leadership Forum last week, highlighting the pivotal role that peer relationships play in leadership effectiveness. This perspective reinforces the idea that a robust network of support among leaders can foster an environment of shared learning and resilience, ultimately leading to improved decision-making and enhanced organizational performance. Such an approach not only cultivates a sense of camaraderie but also promotes a culture where leaders feel empowered and aligned in their collective goals.

Our activities included Leadership Meeting Bingo, meaningful story telling over dinner, and 6:45 am Leadership Walks along the Swan River with structured one to one questions to supercharge conversation. These walks were inspired by Nicki Luther ‘s Leadership Wellness Walk shared at the #HRDWellbeing Summit I was privileged to Chair in May. By breaking down conversation barriers and addressing the elephants in the room, we achieved a clear alignment within our leadership team. This made it easier to work together to define Mapien’s future place in the world.

Have you had similar experiences in developing healthy & high performing leadership teams? Collaboration and shared experiences can lead to greater success for all.  Contact our Mapien team today to discuss high performing leadership, workplace culture and all of your people needs.

The recent introduction of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Act 2024 has seen the implementation of various changes aimed at providing greater clarity with regard to Employees and Independent Contractors.

These changes are designed to address the misperception relating to the characterization of workers as independent contractors, a practice that has the ability to deny workers essential benefits and protections while offering businesses reduced labor costs and increased flexibility.

Whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee, largely depends on the assessment of a number of indicators including:

• the amount of control over how work is performed
• the financial responsibility and risk
• who supplies the tools and equipment
• the ability to delegate or subcontract work
• the hours of work
• the expectation of work continuing.

Provided below are further insights into a number of changes that have already taken effect and others soon to be implemented.

Effective from 24 February 2024, sham contracting amendments were introduced. Sham contracting refers to misrepresenting an employment arrangement as an independent contractor arrangement, which can result in penalties for employers. Employers could previously defend against sham contracting claims by proving they did not know and were not reckless regarding the nature of the employment relationship (known as the ‘recklessness’ test).

This has been replaced with a ‘reasonableness’ test meaning that at the time the representation was made, the Employer must now demonstrate that they “reasonably believed” the arrangement was that of an independent contractor.

New definitions will be included in the Act, which is set to take effect on the 26 August 2024, and will introduce greater criteria for determining whether a worker is genuinely an independent contractor or should be classified as an employee.

The Act redefines “employee” and “employer” based on the “ordinary meaning” test, taking into consideration the real substance, practical reality, and true nature of the relationship between the parties. This will require assessing the totality of the relationship, including how the contract is performed in practice, rather than solely relying on the written terms of the contract.

The introduction of a comprehensive test that examines various factors include:

• The genuine substance, practical reality, and true nature of the working relationship. This also applies when determining if a person is an employer or a principal for outworkers.
• Every aspect of the working relationship between the parties is considered, including both the terms of the contract and how it is carried out in practice. This marks a shift from the old test, which mainly focused on the contract terms alone.

Workers who earn more than the contractor’s high-income threshold (yet to be determined) will also have a right to ‘opt-out’ of applying the new definition test via an opt out notice being provided to the Employer. If a worker provides an opt out notice to the employer or principal, the new definition won’t apply to their relationship and the previous test that focuses solely on the written contract terms will be maintained.

A worker can revoke an opt out notice at any time by giving written notice.

For employees, these legislative amendments create a significant shift towards increased job security and access to employee benefits. Proper classification under the new criteria will ensure workers receive the appropriate wages and conditions including superannuation contributions, paid leave, and other additional benefits in accordance with the National Employment Standards and applicable Award or Enterprise Agreement.

Employers must take heed of these changes and review their workforce classifications and contractual relationships to ensure compliance with the new definitions and protections to avoid legal risks and penalties.

The enforcement of more rigorous criteria for the classification of employees means that many businesses may need to reassess their current workforce arrangements.

Employers will need to conduct a thorough review of their contracting arrangements to ensure compliance with the new regulations. This includes evaluating the nature of the employment relationship and ensuring that contracts align with the practical realities of the work performed​.

Employers should carefully review their independent contractor agreements to ensure they meet the new legal standards and be mindful that reclassifying independent contractors as employees can lead to increased costs, including higher wages, superannuation contributions, and compliance with leave entitlements and other employee benefits.

These legislative updates require employers stay informed and possibly seek further advice to navigate the complexities of the new employment landscape effectively.

If you would like to know more, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

As part of its commitment to strengthening worker protections, the Australian Government has recently introduced new laws to give temporary visa holders confidence to report exploitation early and resolve their workplace issues.

These new laws recognise some temporary visa holders are fearful they will have their visas cancelled if they report exploitation or provide support to an investigation into their employer. These strengthened migrant worker protections have also seen the introduction of a new Workplace Justice Visa.

This update will provide employers and individuals with an overview of these changes including the new penalties which may be imposed, and the Workplace Justice Visa. 

The exploitation of migrant workers is highly detrimental to the wider economy and erodes confidence in our immigration system.

Recent studies have identified that new migrants are 40% more likely to be underpaid because of their usual youth, limited experience and the additional vulnerabilities of visa limitations, weaker contractual power and communication barriers.

This issue occurs not only in the realm of sponsored work visa programs, but more broadly has been proven to occur in any workplace where an Australian business employs migrant workers who may be holders of non-sponsored temporary visas that provides work rights, including student visas, working holiday visas, temporary graduate visas, bridging visas etc.

A proposed future amendment to further support workers will be allowing for time spent working for any sponsor while holding a 482 visa, to count towards the required two-year qualifying employment period for a subclass 186 permanent residence visa under the Temporary Residence Transition Stream.

Following exploitation incidents, the reforms have introduced new regulations to amend the rules on visa cancellation for breaches of visa conditions, particularly after the Assurance Protocol failed.   The Assurance Protocol was introduced in early 2017, and provides that an individual’s visa will not be cancelled in cases where workplace exploitation has been the cause of a breach of work-related conditions, provided:

• the visa holder has sought advice from the Department and is helping the Department with subsequent inquiries
• there are no other reasons for the Department to cancel the person’s visa (ie character or health issues)
• the visa holder has committed to complying with all conditions into the future.

The new Workplace Justice visa pilot has been established to provide greater certainty to migrant workers who wish to remain in Australia while pursuing claims against employers for a range of issues including underpayment of wages, unsafe working conditions, discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace.

Following the 7-Eleven wage rort in 2015 where thousands of migrant workers were significantly underpaid, the government created the Migrant Workers Taskforce, chaired by Professor Allan Fels and Dr David Cousins, who provided their report in 2019.

A substantive response to the Taskforce is represented by the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Act 2024 (Strengthening Employer Compliance Act), which commenced on 1 July 2024.

The Strengthening Employer Compliance Act aims to deter employers from using a person’s immigration status to exploit them. Included in this Act are the following measures:

• making it a crime, with associated civil penalty provisions, to coerce or unduly pressure a person into breaching their work-related visa conditions or accept an exploitative work arrangement to meet a work-related condition of their visa, such as:

• • underpaying a migrant worker
  • pressuring a migrant worker to work more hours than allowed by their visa conditions
  • threatening to cancel a migrant worker’s visa (employers cannot cancel visas)
  • coercing a migrant worker to hand over their passport
  • coercing a migrant worker to engage in unwanted sexual acts
  • pressuring a migrant worker to accept inadequate living conditions, such as poor housing, inadequate meals or access to running water and electricity.

• preventing, for a specific period, employers that have been convicted of these offences from hiring further temporary visa holders (the Employer Prohibition). After the prohibition ends, these employers can hire additional temporary migrants again but must comply with special reporting requirements.
• publishing the names and ABN of these prohibited employers on the Prohibited Employer Register so visa holders can be confident that they are not applying to work with an unscrupulous employer.
• significantly increasing the pecuniary and civil penalties as a deterrent with some fines rising four times.
• providing increased power and tools to the ABF including issuing enforceable undertakings and compliance notices.

More specifically, the Act now makes employers criminally liable for using a person’s migration status to exploit them. The new provisions capture broader scenarios, relating not only to what is considered “work”[1] but also extending to “arrangements in relation to work”.  For example, a request by an employer for a worker to surrender their passport or for a worker to accept unsafe housing arrangements.

The Act also repealed section 235 of the Migration Act, which made it an offence for a visa holder to breach work conditions or for unlawful non-citizens to work.  The intention of this amendment is to encourage anyone who is being exploited to come forward and report it, even where a breach of their visa own conditions occurred as a result.

The Strengthening Employer Compliance Act also provides a new “migrant worker sanction” definition for contraventions to relevant provisions under multiple pieces of legislation, like the Migration Act, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Criminal Code, offences or civil penalty provisions and even enforceable undertakings agreed with the Fair Work Ombudsman. Employers that are subject to a migrant worker sanction may be declared a “prohibited employer”.  In these cases, their names and ABNs will be published on the Prohibited Employer Register, and they will be criminally liable if they allow new non‑citizens to begin work (or if they have any material role in a body corporate that allows non‑citizens to begin work).

Employers who were approved sponsors and have been barred from sponsoring new workers will also be liable to become prohibited employers. The prohibition will apply for a maximum period of five or 10 years, depending on the offence, with no limits for the most serious migrant worker sanctions like human trafficking. For the 12-month period after an employer’s prohibition ends, they must notify the Department of Home Affairs within 28 days of hiring a non-citizen. The Prohibited Employer Register is of course in addition to the existing Register of Sanctioned Sponsors which lists the sponsors who have breached their sponsorship obligations since 18 March 2015.

The Act also stipulates that the Migration Regulations 1994 may prescribe additional protections for exploited temporary migrant workers. To date, the following amendments have been made to the Migration Regulations 1994:

• The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Reporting Protections) Regulations 2024, which strengthens the protections available to migrant workers who report workplace exploitation matters. In a nutshell, it prescribes matters that the Minister must, must not or may consider when deciding whether to cancel a person’s visa under the discretionary cancellation powers available under section 116 of the Migration Act. and;

• The Migration Amendment (Workplace Justice Visa) Regulations 2024.

 ___

[1] “Work” is defined in migration legislation as any activity that would “normally attract remuneration”, therefore only leaving out what is normally regarded as voluntary work.

Supplementary to the migration amendments outlined above, the Australian government has introduced a new Subclass 408 Temporary Activity Visa stream – the Workplace Justice Visa. From 1 July 2024, this stream became available to support applicants who are pursuing claims against their employers for workplace exploitation.

The Workplace Justice visa has the following key criteria:

• The applicant and their dependent family members intend to stay in Australia to undertake a workplace justice activity[1]; and
• The applicant has a certificate which has been issued by a person, body or government entity stating that the applicant is pursuing a matter relating to workplace exploitation.

There is no sponsorship requirement for this stream however the applicant must be endorsed by a person, body or government entity that can confirm the applicant is currently involved in a civil or criminal proceeding as the complainant or victim of a workplace exploitation matter.

The Workplace Justice visa will generally be granted for a period of six months or up to 12 months. It will allow the visa holder and their family members to remain in Australia to undertake the workplace justice activity. The visa holder will also be able to work during their stay in Australia.

This visa has does not have a visa application charge.

The Department has announced that it will implement the Workplace Justice Visa as a pilot program.

___

[1] For DOHA, workplace justice activities could include: wage recovery claims, reporting unsafe work conditions, addressing discrimination, protecting whistle-blowers, preventing retaliation, supporting union activities, misclassification disputes, resolving harassment issues, and/or enforcing employment contracts.

If you want to discuss the above further or are concerned that a temporary visa holder is being exploited, please reach out to us to discuss confidentially.

• The Migration Institute of Australia
• Department of Home Affairs
• Mapien’s Team of RMA’s

A recent case in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has reinforced the importance of employers understanding and complying with the consultation provisions in their industrial instruments when undertaking major workplace change.

It also makes clear, that failure to do so, can result in a termination that arises from that workplace change being found to not be a genuine redundancy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) because the employer has failed to comply with the applicable consultation requirements.

The case in question relates to a Financial Data Analyst working for a not for profit organisation. The employee was hired in August, 2022.

In May, 2023 the organisation commenced conversations with the employee regarding a possible change in job title and provided a draft job description. A month later, the employee was told everything was on hold because of the appointment of a new Chief Information Officer (CIO) and that any changes needed to align with the CIO’s plan for the Business Intelligence Department.

Between July 2023 and October 2023, the CIO reviewed the structure and performance of the Business Intelligence Department. On 17 October 2023, the CIO sent an email to the Head of Data Analysis & Reporting and other Executives confirming that amongst other structural changes the position of Financial Data Analyst was “too narrow in scope and skill set, and so would be made redundant in the new structure.”

Six days later on 23 October, 2023 the CIO and Head of Data Analysis and Reporting met with the employee to inform him of the company’s decision to make his role redundant. This was followed by meetings on 1 November and 8 November 2023, where the employee unsuccessfully applied for an alternative position of Senior Data Analyst, resulting in his termination on 8 November, 2023. The employee subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim.

Upon reviewing the entire sequence of events between May and October 2023, the FWC found that the company had decided to review and restructure the Team as early as June 2023 but had not communicated this decision to the employee until 23 October 2023.

Whilst the FWC found that there were operational requirements that led to the company making the role of Finance Data Analyst redundant, it also found that the termination was not a genuine redundancy because the employer had failed to comply with the applicable consultation requirements under its own Enterprise Agreement. One of the requirements of the Act is for the employer to comply with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employee’s employment requiring prior consultation about redundancy.

The FWC determined that the company should have consulted with the affected employee as reasonably practicable after the decision was made to initiate a structural review which could have resulted in a significant impact for the employee.

The FWC found that the CIO had consulted with “other leaders” on how to plan and effect the restructure, and that he had met with many others in the senior management team to understand what skills and experience were required in the Business Intelligence Department moving forward. The FWC said that the CIO had consulted with almost everyone except for the impacted employee.

In its decision, the FWC stated that the purpose of consultation requirements is to allow affected employees the opportunity to participate in the process and have a say in decisions and actions that may significantly impact them once a decision has been made to take action or introduce major changes. This is required before an employee is terminated. Consultation was not simply informing an employee that they were to be made redundant several months after the decision to restructure their team had already been made.

Having found that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, the FWC awarded the employee a gross payment of $7,452. This equated to three weeks’ pay, which is the amount of additional time it would have taken for the company to properly comply with the consultation requirements under their Enterprise Agreement.

If you would like more information on how to comply with consultation provisions in your industrial instrument, please contact us to see how we can support you and your organisation!

Recent changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) and modern awards from 1 July 2024 have introduced significant rights for workplace delegates to represent members of their union including communication with members in work time, access to the workplace and workplace facilities, and access to training.

These changes will affect workplaces where there are currently no workplace delegates, but they will also have potential application to workplaces where arrangements for workplace delegates are already in place.

A workplace delegate is a person appointed or elected, in accordance with the rules of an employee organisation, to be a delegate or representative (however described) for members of the organisation who work in a particular enterprise. In essence, a workplace delegate is an employee who is a representative of their union at the workplace.

A workplace delegate may represent the industrial interests of eligible employees who wish to be represented by the workplace delegate for matters including:

• consultation about major workplace change;
• consultation about changes to rosters or hours of work;
• resolution of disputes;
• disciplinary processes;
• enterprise bargaining where the workplace delegate has been appointed as a bargaining representative or is assisting the delegate’s organisation with enterprise bargaining; and
• any process or procedure within an award, enterprise agreement or policy of the employer under which eligible employees are entitled to be represented and which concerns their industrial interests.

An employer is required to provide a workplace delegate with access to or use of the following workplace facilities:

• a room or area to hold discussions that is fit for purpose, private and accessible by the workplace delegate and eligible employees;
• a physical or electronic noticeboard;
• electronic means of communication ordinarily used in the workplace by the employer to communicate with eligible employees and by eligible employees to communicate with each other, including access to Wi-Fi;
• a lockable filing cabinet or other secure document storage area; and
• office facilities and equipment including printers, scanners and photocopiers.

However, the employer is not required to provide access to or use of a workplace facility if:

• the workplace does not have the facility;
• due to operational requirements, it is impractical to provide access to or use of the facility at the time or in the manner it is sought; or
• the employer does not have access to the facility at the enterprise and is unable to obtain access after taking reasonable steps.

An employer, who is not a small business employer, is required to provide a workplace delegate with access to up to five days of paid time during normal working hours for initial training and at least one day each subsequent year, to attend training related to representation of the industrial interests of eligible employees.

However, paid training is subject to the following conditions:

• in each year commencing 1 July, the employer is not required to provide access to paid time for training to more than one workplace delegate per 50 eligible employees; and
• the number of eligible employees is to be determined on the day a delegate requests paid time to attend training. Eligible employees are those who are full-time or part-time employees, or regular casual employees.

Payment for a day of paid time during normal working hours is payment of the amount the workplace delegate would have been paid for the hours the workplace delegate would have been rostered or required to work on that day if the delegate had not been absent from work to attend the training.

A workplace delegate is subject to the following conditions when exercising their rights:

• comply with their duties and obligations as an employee;
• comply with the reasonable policies and procedures of the employer, including reasonable codes of conduct and requirements in relation to occupational health and safety and acceptable use of ICT resources (presumably meaning information and communications technology);
• not hinder, obstruct or prevent the normal performance of work; and
• not hinder, obstruct or prevent eligible employees exercising their rights to freedom of association.

The FW Act provides that the employer must not:

• unreasonably fail or refuse to deal with a workplace delegate; or
• knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading representation to a workplace delegate; or
• unreasonably hinder, obstruct or prevent the exercise of the rights of a workplace delegate under the FW Act or the delegates’ rights clause.

The delegates’ rights provisions place onerous obligations on employers to support and pay for delegates to conduct union business at the workplace including during work hours. The risks for employers that do not manage their obligations to workplace delegates are potentially significant.

If you would like to know more about delegates’ rights, please contact us and a Mapien Workplace Strategist will be in touch within 24 hours.

This is blog #10 in our series on coaching models. Sign up to our mailing list to make sure you don’t miss out on our future content.

Are you confident in your ability to deliver feedback in the workplace?

Feedback can be a powerful tool for motivation, engagement, growth, wellbeing, satisfaction, development, and organisational performance. But it can have a positive or negative impact, depending on the type of feedback and how it is delivered.

As a leader, delivering feedback in the best possible way will benefit your colleagues — and your organisation as a whole. We’ve got a coaching model (and some practical tips) to help you make the most of every opportunity to share feedback.

You might’ve heard of The Feedback Sandwich (or hamburger), which involves sandwiching constructive criticism in between positive feedback. But there’s another feedback model you may not have heard of: The Feedback Bridge!

The Feedback Bridge helps to structure your conversations when giving feedback — whether you want to reinforce positive behaviours or encourage a shift in behaviour.

It helps you, the feedback-giver, to build a bridge between the current situation and the desired future situation. And ideally, it also helps to build or reinforce the connection between yourself and the feedback recipient.

If you’re not yet confident on how to give feedback, it’s the perfect place to start.

The Feedback Bridge can be used to plan your conversation ahead of time, ensuring that you touch upon key points of feedback and insight in a way that’s effective, considerate, and most likely to have the desired effect. We’ve broken this method down into four key steps, along with some examples.

The first step is to identify the behaviour you’d like to focus your feedback on. It could be positive behaviour that you want to reinforce, or unwanted behaviour that you want to encourage them to change. We’ve included one example of each below:

Whether you’re planning to reinforce a positive behaviour or change a negative behaviour, you’ll need to address why you wish to encourage or change the behaviour. Reflect on what the impact of that behaviour is and how you’ll bring that up in conversation. For example:

Note: if your feedback will be focused on changing an undesired or negative behaviour, there’s an extra step involved. You should start with a positive comment (that’s relevant to the situation) with your feedback. This will help to:

• Keep your perspective balanced and focused on the big picture (it’s not all bad!)
• Soften the blow of any negative points you’re about to share
• Prepare the recipient to be open to critical feedback
• Boost the recipient’s self-esteem and motivation

In the negative behaviour example shown above, you might like to start with one of the following positive comments:

To complete your preparations, write down everything from steps one and two, following the structure of The Feedback Bridge. Note how each of your comments should be connected by words like “because” or “and” — this links your feedback to the reasons behind it.

You might like to recreate a simple version of The Feedback Bridge to fill out, or copy-paste the following templates:

Reinforcing positive behaviour

Changing negative behaviour

Finally, it’s time to share your feedback with the intended recipient, ensuring you follow The Feedback Bridge structure to deliver your comments.

For more serious or formal feedback, you should schedule a one-on-one catch up, ideally face-to-face. But if the feedback is more casual in nature, a more informal approach may be more appropriate (in fact, scheduling a meeting could cause unnecessary anxiety!).

We share more about this topic in our previous blog, Workplace Communication: Choosing The Right Communication Channel.

In addition to using The Feedback Bridge, we’ve got some additional tips and principles that can help make your feedback more effective and constructive.

Have a clear why

Research suggests that your perceived intent can have an impact on how the recipient reacts to your feedback. So, ask yourself what you want to achieve from the conversation and make your reasons clear from the start. Most importantly, ensure your feedback is focused on benefitting the recipient.

Make it specific

Feedback that is general in nature probably won’t help the recipient and might even confuse them. The feedback you share should be specific and concrete, just like the S.M.A.R.T.(S) goal setting framework we covered previously.

Make it actionable

Your feedback should also be focused on something the recipient can take action on. After all, there’s few things more frustrating than getting criticism about something you cannot control or change.

Keep it positive

One of the reasons we like The Feedback Bridge framework is because it can be used to enforce positive behaviour, and it incorporates positive comments even when change is desired.

When you’re quick to praise and reinforce positive behaviours, you can directly impact efficiency and effectiveness. And one of the best things you can do is praise the effort people put into their work.

Ask for feedback in return

“Feedback is a free education.”

As a leader, you can model how you want your team to receive feedback and respond to criticism. So, if you don’t already have a feedback mechanism in place for your leadership, create one. Ask for feedback and prepare to gain some insights into your own behaviour as you work towards becoming a better leader.

If giving and receiving feedback feels tricky right now, it might be because you need to do it more often.

Recently, McKinsey shared about a new initiative to encourage their teams to practise having feedback conversations via structured “challenges” delivered over a four week period. Their goal was to help people get comfortable asking for, reflecting on, and taking action on feedback. This initiative resulted in 250 feedback conversations that would otherwise not have happened, and they received many positive comments from those involved.

The takeaway? You can build your feedback muscle over time by simply sharing and requesting feedback on a regular basis!

There are various other methods for providing feedback to others, and different models may even be better suited to your context or purpose better than The Feedback Bridge. As a starting point, we recommend exploring:

• The Feedback Sandwich
• The Situation-Behaviour-Impact (SBI) Feedback Model
• The Example-Effect-Change/Continue (EEC) Feedback Model
• The Describe-Express-Specify-Consequences (DESC) Feedback Model

Plus, many of the leadership and coaching models we’ve shared previously are useful tools for reflection, behavioural change, and personal development. Take a look at Stealth Expectations, The Circles of Control, Influence & Concern, The GROW Coaching Model, The Stages of Change Model, and The Choice Point Method.

Looking for support with workplace psychology or more hands-on support for your leadership team? Contact our team to start the conversation today!

As we head into the new financial year, we’re excited to celebrate our latest Mapien promotions, and share some exciting updates in our Workplace Strategy leadership team.

We’re excited to share some changes to our leadership structure in the new financial year.

Need prompt and practical advice? Please contact us and one of our Workplace Strategists will be in touch within 24 hours.

As we enter into the last week of June, below is a reminder of the changes taking effect from the 1^st July 2024 specific to the employer sponsored visa categories – Subclass 482, 494 and 186 visa. Please read the below updates so you are prepared for the changes.

• Fee Increases
• TSMIT Increase
• Change to 482 and 494 visa conditions
• Age Concession will end 30^th June 2024

• Reduction of work experience requirement for Subclass 482 visa

• Develop new Skills in Demand Visa
• Develop a specialist skills pathway to drive innovation & job creation
• Develop a core skills pathway to meet targeted workforce needs

From 1^st July 2024, the TSMIT will increase from $70,000 to $73,150.

New nomination applications (Subclass 482, 494 and Subclass 186) lodged from the 1^st July 2024 will need to meet the new TSMIT of $73,150 or the annual market salary rate, whichever is higher.

This change will not affect existing visa holders and nominations lodged before the 1^st July 2024.

As part of the continued visa overhaul, the Department has announced that the following visa conditions will change for visa holders of the subclass 482 and 494 visas on 1^st July: Conditions: 8107, 8608 and 8607.

These conditions currently state that you must only work for your sponsoring employer in your nominated occupation and if you cease employment it cannot be for more than 60 days.

These visa holders (subclass 482 and 494) will now have 180 days at a time or 365 days in total across the entire visa grant period, to find a new employer to sponsor them, trial with a new employer before a nomination transfer/visa application, lodge another type of visa or leave the country.

As well as granting the visa holder more time to find a new employer, the Department will also allow the visa holder to work for other employers and work in occupations not listed on their most recent nomination approval.

Sponsoring employers are still required to make the cessation notification to the Department within 28 days. This obligation has not changed.

These conditions apply to existing visa holders as well as new.

As part of the Governments plan to allow temporary visa holders a pathway to PR, the age concession was available to those who:

From 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2024, are eligible legacy subclass 457 visa holders who can access the TRT stream. To be eligible the visa holder must:

• have held a subclass 457 visa on or after 18 April 2017
• have been in Australia between 1 February 2020 and 14 December 2021 for at least one year
• meet all other nomination and visa requirements

This allowed visa holders over the age of 45 years to apply for a Subclass 186 visa under the TRT pathway. This pathway closes on the 30^th June 2024 to this visa cohort.

To apply for a subclass 186 using the current age concession in place you must:

• Have worked for your sponsoring employer for two years while holding the subclass 482 visa, and;

While earning the Fair Work High Income Threshold (FWHIT) for those two years.

Labour market testing is also being reviewed, with the first changes that happened last year where the need to advertise on Workforce Australia was removed. The Government will look to make the LMT less complicated and implement a four to six month validity late 2024.

Currently the requirement is that the sponsor has advertised in two locations, for a period of 28 days, where the adverts are no older than four  months prior to nomination lodgement.

We welcome these LMT changes.

This is going to be a year of change with the Government undertaking thorough research on the labour market as it starts to form the policy settings for the new Skills in Demand Visa.

Please ensure you are ready and are reviewing your current temporary visa holder employees.

If you need immigration advice or assistance please always reach out to our Mapien team, we are here to help.

As part of the visa overhaul announced last year, the Department of Home Affairs have announced that from the 1st July 2024 the following visa conditions will change for subclass 457, 482 and 494 visa holders:

⭐️ Condition 8107, 8607, and 8606

These conditions currently state that you must only work for your sponsoring employer in your nominated occupation and if you cease employment it cannot be for more than 60 days. These visa holders would also be required to find a new employer to take over their visa by completing a nomination transfer within that 60 day period.

The announcement has confirmed that due to some worker exploitation over the years, DOHA will relax these conditions to allow these visa holders to easily move between sponsors.

• These visa holders who hold the above visas who stop working with their sponsor will be given more time to find a new sponsor, apply for a different visa or depart Australia.
• These visa holders will now have 180 days at a time or 365 days in total across the entire visa grant period.
• As well as DOHA granting more time to find a new sponsor visa holders will also be able to work for other employers and work in occupations not listed on their most recent nomination approval. A most generous change by the Department and one that I am nervous about albeit glad to see the flexibility for those who need more time to find a new sponsor and work to support their families while they search for new employment.
• Sponsoring employers are still required to make notification to DOHA within 28 days of cessation of employment.
• These conditions apply to existing visa holders as well as new.

Only time will tell on how this will all unfold particularly for employers where the visa holder can now more freely visa hop. Good news those for new employers where they can trial the visa holder before they complete the visa process.

For more information and immigration advice, please as always, reach out to us at Mapien.