I’m sure most of you have been part of redundancy processes — the tough conversations, the leader coaching, the late-night “how do we do this right?” chats. So here’s one that really got me thinking 👇 I recently caught up with an ex-colleague who’s been on maternity leave for the past year. A few months before her return-to-work date, she was told she was being made redundant. Now, knowing the company and how “tactical” corporate timing can be, I asked her the usual HR questions we’d all want to know: - Has the meeting already happened? - Have you signed anything yet? - Is it only your role being made redundant? - Was there any consultation process? - And the big one — who’s doing your role now? Because if someone else is still doing the work…we all know it’s not a genuine redundancy right! Here’s where it gets interesting — she couldn’t actually file for unfair dismissal because her salary was above the high-income threshold, which sits at $183,100 per year (as of 1 July 2025). But — and this is where a lot of companies forget the nuance — she can still lodge a General Protections claim. And given she was the only one made redundant, with someone else performing her duties AND she was on maternity leave, there’s a pretty strong argument for discrimination. Which brings me to my question for you all 👇 Do you think the high-income threshold should apply in cases involving parental leave-related dismissals? Or should there be leniency — broader protection for parents returning from leave, regardless of what they earn? Keen to hear your take on this one.

Here’s a really interesting case I came across this week that I wanted to share! So a lot of employers think: “If I pay a high enough salary, I don’t need to worry about the award.” But this new Federal Court decision shows why that mindset is risky. What the Court confirmed: You can use salary to “set-off” award entitlements but only if it’s done properly: ✅ The salary must cover what’s owed in the same pay period (you can’t average it across months). ✅ The employment contract must clearly say the salary is in satisfaction of award entitlements. ❌ You cannot re-label payments later or pool the money over 6 months and say “it all evens out”. ❌ You still have to keep full overtime/penalty records — set-off clauses do not remove that obligation. Woolworths argued: “We overpaid staff overall across 6 months — that covers any award underpayments.” The Court said no — award entitlements fall due when the pay period ends, not 6 months later. If you didn’t meet them in that pay period, set-off doesn’t save you. They also failed the record-keeping test — roster data and clock-in times were not enough. Why this matters? If you use set-off clauses in contracts, this case is a reminder: - High salary is not a defence - You must match period by period - You must still keep correct time records This is a super important case and one that forces everyone to pause and think on how employers must treat set-off clauses. Let me know your thoughts!