At a recent industry conference, a keynote speaker talked about great outcomes a number of our clients achieved in a critical enterprise bargaining round.

One observation was the importance of “patience“ – with which we would wholeheartedly agree.

So it got us thinking about ingredients for success.

Here are some key ones, borrowed from our bespoke workshop process dedicated to this end.

  1. Clarity of need: articulated and connected to the business needs
  2. Gain v Pain: clarity of what’s needed and the pain points along the way
  3. Leadership: the bedrock of any project
  4. Strategy: integrated – articulated – understood
  5. Planning: which falls out of the strategy and in respect of which one can never do enough
  6. Alignment: cemented by sound governance
  7. Resilience: which comes back to leadership

Each can be strengthened for any employer embarking on a bargaining campaign by the taking of tangible steps. You might not be perfect on each but it’s possible to ‘move the dial’.


Would you like to hear more about our workshop process for enterprise bargaining? Contact Chris Gardner.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

For years, the emergence of truly global supply chains and the rise of large, increasingly skilled workforces has wrought havoc on labour supply in Western developed countries. It seems that these days nearly every industry, profession or occupation is facing an existential threat due to automation, artificial intelligence or other advances in technology (indeed, lawyers are said to be the next to go!). This is seen as the next frontier.

In this environment, there is a soothsaying comfort in taking measures that might “future proof” your organisation from the potentially terrifying effects of change and disruption.

But is that really possible? More to the point, is this thinking even helpful?

We work with many of the most successful global organisations. We are always curious to learn why some organisations are successful in the long term, on a massive scale, whilst others fall by the wayside or are diminished over time.

One feature stands out. The most successful organisations do not pretend that there is one initiative – that can be implemented now – to forever insulate them from the effects of change. Rather, their leadership (and these organisations have great leaders at all levels) cultivate a mindset of constant, very often brave, change.

They disrupt themselves before any competitor will have the chance. They make bets on the future and are open to doing things differently, seeing failure as an inevitable part of the learning process. These organisations know that in a truly dynamic and global business environment, there is huge risk in just repeating what has worked in the past. These organisations do not fall into the trap of trying to “future proof” their organisation. They intuitively understand there is no such thing, and that bold leadership, and a learning and calculated risk-taking orientation are a better bulwark against disruption than any future proofing initiative will ever be. These organisations know that an opportunity-driven approach is the only way, and that a risk-driven business model “don’t change anything, don’t break anything” is the riskiest business model of all.

In the last six months we at Seyfarth have seen so many great examples of these types of organisations. Here are a few:

  • An Australian big 4 retail bank with extensive overseas operations, introducing new ways of working that are breaking down silos and making collaboration within the bank much easier
  • A global e-commerce and data services client establishing its operations in Australia, in what is sure to be its latest successful international expansion
  • A global manufacturer and seller of solar panels, investing in Australia given the enthusiasm of various State and Territory Governments to promote renewable energy, whilst somewhat dismayed and discouraged by President Donald Trump’s introduction of tariffs on their products imported into the United States
  • An Australian based manufacturer of a unique biodegradable resin moving its manufacturing from China to Europe in order to take advantage of the friendly production environment in some European countries combined with the progressive and environmentally conscious nature of European consumers of its products.

These organisations are strong examples of opportunity driven leadership – willing to make bold decisions to position themselves well, always thinking in global terms, and always willing to incorporate new and better ways of working. That may mean incorporating or even inventing new technologies, or simply making constant incremental operational improvements. They don’t try to future proof, because they accept that tomorrow will bring more change – some of it unforeseen and perhaps unwelcome.

The cycle of change and transformation is constant. The tension between stability and change, between order and chaos, is ever present: but it is accepted and managed, not denied. These organisations accept the uncertainty that must be managed in today’s world. In fact, they embrace it, knowing that this attitude is itself a competitive advantage.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Automation is a game changer that is altering the industrial landscape. A Committee for Economic Development of Australia publication estimates that over the next 10 to 20 years, 40% of jobs in Australia have a high probability of being susceptible to computerisation and automation.

Smart businesses will approach the automation process from the front end and engage with their workforce in a manner that ensures the business is able to harness all of the productivity benefits from automation, without suffering the industrial dissention and dislocation which so often coincides with dramatic workplace change.

Planning and practical implementation is critical

McKinsey recently published “A CEO action plan for workplace automation”, highlighting the benefits of business harnessing automation processes within their workforces. However, it cautions the need for an appropriate plan of action.

From an industrial relations standpoint, preparing for automation sooner rather than later can provide a business with payoffs down the track.

Where the opportunity presents itself for a business to enter into a carefully tailored enterprise (or greenfields) agreement prior to implementing automation measures, such an opportunity should be seriously considered. If timed properly, this will minimise the impact on the business from workplace change, and maximise workplace flexibility to allow the business to easily transition, saving time, cost and mitigating the risk of workplace disputes arising.

Left to the last minute, an enterprise may face pitfalls in implementing technological change. For instance, should a round of enterprise bargaining be imminent, employees and their representatives will push for greater job security during bargaining through superior redundancy and retention type arrangements. These could slow change, and add cost and complexity. Late engagement and consultation may also create resentment and cause further disputes and delays.

Where workforce engagement occurs early, these issues may not be so prevalent, and a business can ensure that it has the appropriate flexibility mechanisms in place to easily transition. As reported in The Australian recently, NAB’s Andrew Thorburn reflects on the importance of planning for NAB to “retrain and redeploy” workers post-automation. Clearly, planning can deliver the best outcomes for all stakeholders.

Enterprise bargaining in the post-automation world

There are implications on an employer bargaining for a new enterprise agreement (or for a greenfields agreement over a new enterprise) that will cover the business post-automation.

For example, the ability to influence new roles that will be required from technological advances comes with the ability for an employer to:

  • effectively bargain for terms and conditions off a fresh slate as post-automation roles may result in coverage of employees with vastly different terms and conditions
  • use a different modern award (if any) as a base for terms and conditions
  • provide an employer with greater leverage in bargaining through dealing with a smaller, more specialised workforce
  • bargain in circumstances where the agreement’s coverage will dictate which union (if any) has a right to represent employees.

Of course, the need to engage workers with a different skill set may also provide a business with an opportunity for workers to grow in their careers, and present an environment in which cultural change might be effectively promoted and achieved. Viewed through this lens, technical change need not be seen as a negative from an employee relations perspective.

Implementation of process

‘Redundancy’ is the word that comes to most employees minds when they catch wind of an employer taking steps to automate elements of their work.

However, despite many claims made to the contrary, major technological change does not necessarily result in a workforce being decimated. Opportunities are inevitably presented from change for employees to upskill in order to fulfil different roles in the business (or elsewhere).

Unfortunately downsizing a workforce is, in a number of cases, a necessary step in achieving the full productivity benefits that are so attractive in implementing technological change. Again, early and effective planning can minimise forced job losses, and maximise opportunities to upskill.

Transparency and appropriate engagement with employees is critical during the process, as is implementing an appropriate consultation plan.

In a world where so many businesses are moving to automation, failure to take these steps may result in your business falling behind its competitors, change (and its benefits) being seriously delayed, or the often significant capital costs required blowing out.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Recently a number of stoushes about the enforcement of post-employment restraints of trade – including one that captivated the legal industry for many months last year – have played out publicly.

Their high profile nature means it is timely for big business to re-evaluate their restraints of trade to make sure they are effective – emphasised by the fact we are seeing movement in many industries (including the legal industry) picking up pace as teams relocate as a result of mergers and the continued impact of globalisation.

Restraint of trade provisions are common in many employment contracts, but whether or not a business takes steps to hold an outgoing employee to account is a different question. This can be for a range of reasons – for example, not wanting to be the “bad guy”, or where the relationship has fractured to a point where culturally, both parties are happy to move on.

But more commonly, it comes down to the fact that when the rubber hits the road, a closer inspection of the applicable restraints shows that the business doesn’t have a good case to enforce the restraints or that – even if they are enforceable – they don’t give the business the protection it really needs.

There are 3 key strategies to increase the chances that your restraints are effective – keeping you out of court and off the front pages:
  1. tailor your restraints to your business and to the employee – the cases highlight that restraints should be designed carefully to reflect what is actually important to the business and the job of the particular employee. While there is a superficial attractiveness to broad restraints, you need to think about what aspects of the employee’s role justify restricting them in some way after they leave – the courts don’t often like boiler-plate or broad-brush provisions to which no thought has been given.
  2. don’t be blinded by love – we all know the feeling of meeting someone new, making a connection, and thinking about how great your lives will be together. We ignore the faults that stare our friends in the face – because we can’t possibly think of how the relationship would ever turn sour. When it comes to recruitment, that applies too. You should very carefully consider any employee’s request to delete or modify key aspects of the restraint provisions (including, for example, reducing restraint periods, or waiving restraints if certain things happen) – because we all know some relationships just don’t last.
  3. re-evaluate contracts during the employment relationship – you would expect productive and valuable employees to progress and succeed in your business. However, promotions – and particularly senior promotions – often mean the employee has increased access to confidential information/business strategies, key clients/customers and talented fellow employees. Consider promotions as a good opportunity to look carefully at whether the existing restraints are sufficient to protect the company’s interests – it might be worth issuing an updated contract with new restraints at that point.

All our tips on restraints can be found here, along with our map of Post-Employment Protections.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

It is common for employers to bring on employees for limited term employment, where work may not be ongoing. Traditionally, “outer limit” contracts have allowed for the employment to end on an agreed date without a resignation or dismissal. A recent decision of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission may have pushed “outer limit” contracts closer to their own expiry date.

The key takeout is that if the employee does not voluntarily leave employment and the driving force causing the employment to end is a decision or act of the employer, it could be a “dismissal”, even if the employment ends on the agreed expiry date. In addition to unfair dismissal, this change could also have broader impacts, for example:

  • Does an employer have to provide notice or pay in lieu even if the employment ends on the agreed date?
  • If the contract is not renewed because there is no ongoing work, is this a redundancy?
  • If the employee does not wish keep working, is that a resignation?
Termination may now be considered dismissal 

Where employment ends at the agreed expiry in an “outer limit” contract, this has traditionally been regarded as expiry due to the effluxion of time rather than a “dismissal” which could give rise to a claim under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. In December 2017, by majority, the Full Bench of the Commission overturned the previous authority on this point.

The majority held that expiry of an “outer limit” contract which allows for termination on notice can amount to a “dismissal”. The majority said that not every contract expiry will be a “dismissal”: this depends on a range of factors including the context of the employment. In the case considered by the full bench, the employee had been employed on a series of ‘outer limit’ contracts and was not offered a further contract due to performance concerns. The outcome may have been different if there was a single contract, with a justifiable basis for the nominated end date.

Changes to how you use “outer limit” contracts

Employers may need to consider treating decisions to end outer limit employment on the expiry date as if this was a decision to dismiss. They should also ensure that “outer limit” contracts are only used where there is a legitimate reason to do so – eg expressly linked to short term funding or role requirement and not as a routine way of engaging people, particularly where such contracts are routinely rolled-over.

An employer may also wish to ensure the employee understands the nature of the contract and the reason it is in place for a limited period of time.

Unfortunately, this change is likely to result in increased administration and costs for “outer limit” contracts, which may undermine their utility – and bring them closer to their own expiry.

***

Fixed term versus “outer limit” contracts: Speaking technically, a fixed term contract locks both the employer and employee into working for the full fixed period, without the possibility of earlier termination (other than for serious misconduct or other serious breaches of the contract warranting termination without notice).

It is more common to see “outer limit” contracts, which come to an end on a specified date or event (the “outer limit” of the contract), but allow either party to terminate the contract before that date. This provides both parties with more flexibility.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Within eight days of each other Bill Shorten and ACTU head, Sally McManus, have called for changes to the enterprise bargaining regime which is a central feature of Labor’s own Fair Work Act. Whilst we will no doubt hear more on this these statements would be chilling to many an employer who regards the current system as stacked against them.

To be fair, finding the right balance in a system which directly effects wage outcomes is difficult. But Labor’s legislation cemented collective bargaining as a central platform for agreement making and did away with a statutory regime to make individual agreements. In doing so unions were given the best legislative platform to date to compel employers to bargain – even with a union that has a minority membership interest in the business.

Mr Shorten cites low wage growth to make the case for change amidst greater productivity. The wages-work bargain is unfair it seems. Conversely employers will tell you that the “productivity lemon” has been well and truly squeezed from enterprise bargaining with little or no incentive for unions to countenance genuine trade-offs. In its inception back in the 1990s, enterprise bargaining presented an opportunity – to move away from inflexible centrally set terms and conditions to outcomes which better reflect the needs of the enterprise. It paved the potential for “win-win” outcomes. But no more. If macro data points to increased labour productivity, the nexus between this and collective bargaining will be very tenuous.

To this extent there is universal acceptance of a system unable to meet the needs of the workplace today and certainly not the future. If no agreement is reached, the status quo typically remains. In negotiations, speak the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Outcome” for a union and employees is the status quo being the existing enterprise agreement. Very often, the genesis of these agreements were struck when the business was in a very different place – many years ago and when current competitive conditions were beyond contemplation.

Enterprise bargaining, once an opportunity is now an exercise in managing risk. This involves stemming the tide of increasing labour costs and avoiding claims which, for instance, prevent outsourcing or mandate third party involvement in legitimate business decisions. But there’s more. The system relies on a game of leverage. Unions can organise industrial action to effectively coerce employers to agree. Employers can lock employees out in response. Neither are very constructive in the long run. Ms McManus is calling for greater ease to take industrial action and tighter controls on employer lock outs. Mr Shorten wants to shut down the Fair Work Commission’s (limited) ability to terminate old enterprise agreements – which provides employers with a precious opportunity to remove outdated and restrictive clauses albeit not without a contested hearing process usually over some months.

So, inherent in the thinking of both Labor and the ACTU is a re-setting of the legislative levers of leverage which drive bargaining outcomes. For employers more of the same but worse. Employers will make agreements palatable in the short term only because the short term cost of the bargaining process (industrial action) is too high. Rational economic outcomes are thus easily distorted. Of course in the medium-long term the cost of making an agreement becomes intolerable. Restructuring, outsourcing, and offshoring become part of an inevitable ‘solution’ for employers.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

In the last working week of 2017, the Victorian Government quietly released the Independent Review of Occupational Health and Safety Compliance and Enforcement in Victoria. As we settle into the new working year, we consider whether the Review is likely to change the compliance and enforcement landscape in Victoria – whether more ‘carrots’ will be proffered, or whether duty holders will suffer more ‘stick’.

Is the Review likely to result in a seismic shift of compliance and enforcement activities for occupational health and safety offences in Victoria? Probably not. However, this is no bad thing – it symbolises an old adage that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – we have previously commented that this adage is a sound approach to regulatory and policy reform.

Rather than fundamental change, the report indicates incremental changes to the way WorkSafe Victoria is likely to:

Plan and target compliance and enforcement activities

Publishing its annual compliance and enforcement priorities.

Adopting a risk based approach to compliance and enforcement activities.

Establishing performance based measures which reflect health and safety outcomes.

Responding to the changing workplace context (ie the “gig economy”).

Communicate and implement its compliance and enforcement framework

Identifying and documenting its compliance and enforcement framework with a guide developed by mid-2018.

Communicating the circumstances in which each compliance and enforcement tool may be used.

Developing a process to regularly review documents in the compliance and enforcement framework.

Updating the visual representation of its regulatory approach.

 Provide information and support to duty holders

Engaging more with stakeholders in shaping its strategies.

Being increasingly proactive in risk scanning and monitoring.

Publishing its research agenda.

Increasing the amount of published guidance and resources including some inspector checklists.

Implementing targeted media campaigns.

Increasing the publication of enforcement outcomes.

Collaborate and engage with other regulators and duty holders.

Introducing infringement notices for some offences.

Continuing to use enforceable undertakings (EUs) with an updated policy on when an EU may be accepted and what an EU may contain.

Undertaking “blitzes” of particular industries/high risk activities.

Increasing strategic prosecutions of offences in priority areas and for exposure to risk (as opposed to reactive prosecutions of injuries and fatalities).

The proposed reforms therefore seem to offer a balance of carrot – by way of greater transparency on WorkSafe’s compliance and enforcement activities and some stick – in the form of the suggested infringement notices and increased prosecutions in strategic areas and for exposure of persons to risk.
As the year progresses, it will become clear which of the recommendations assume priority and whether our prediction of only incremental change is correct.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

In a dynamic and fast paced business environment, structuring the workforce to meet changing operational requirements is front of mind for most employers.

These requirements will often necessitate changes to an employee’s duties to ensure the business has the right skills in place in a competitive market – for example, to keep pace with technological change. Employers may also look to fill a resourcing gap by utilising existing employees in a different role, rather than recruiting.

The ability to direct an employee to perform additional or different duties will depend on the specific employment instruments that are in place, and their terms. The starting point is to consider the contract of employment, job description and any applicable industrial instrument to confirm what the job involves, whether a variation is permitted, and in what circumstances.

In some cases, organisational change may give rise to a redundancy, entitling the employee to severance pay. A redundancy situation may occur where the duties performed by an employee change so substantially that there is no longer any function or duty attached to the position. But where is the line? The Federal Court of Australia recently considered this question on appeal, from the Federal Circuit Court.

Sensis Pty Ltd v Robert Gundi

Seyfarth Shaw acted for the successful appellant, Sensis (Sensis Pty Ltd v Robert Gundi [2017] FCA 1519), in this case. A Sensis sales employee was directed to focus his sales activities on winning new business from prospective customers, rather than selling to customers that already had a relationship with the company. This was the only change to the role. The job description required the employee to sell advertising products and services to both existing and prospective customers of Sensis.

Mr Gundi asserted he had been made redundant, however the Court found that the employee’s position was not redundant, because at all times, he was required to service new and existing customers of Sensis. While the split between new and existing business had changed (quite a lot), the basic duties he was directed to perform were within the scope of the position, as contemplated by the contract of employment and job description.

The upshot is that employers will have some flexibility to change an employee’s duties at their prerogative, provided it is within the scope of the employment, and specifically, the employee’s contract. Think about giving the business this kind of ‘flex’ when drafting contracts.

Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox.

Social, technological and economic forces impacting the workplace will continue to pose challenges for employers, employees, unions, policy makers and regulators in 2018.

Disruption

In 2016 the CEDA reported that 40% of Australia’s workforce could be replaced by automation within the next 10 to 20 years. Of course, automation has been happening since the industrial revolution – but the nature, pace and scale of automation is now being fuelled by digital disruption. These changes are happening now, or their seeds are being sown in many a workplace.

The Government recently established the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers. Expect its report in June.

Corporate accountability for workplace breaches

This is one for boardroom ‘risk buckets’. Expect to see increased activity from the Fair Work Ombudsman targeting holding companies and franchisors following the enactment of the Protecting Vulnerable Workers legislation in September 2017. These changes bring home accountability to holding companies and franchisors for certain workplace contraventions by their subsidiaries and franchisees. These changes take individual and corporate responsibility for workplace compliance to a new level.

Wage growth and bargaining

There are mixed views here with economists tipping a return to healthy wage growth. Low wage outcomes have been reflected in collective bargaining. Tight economic conditions have seen many an employer “bunker down” to avoid high wage outcomes – effectively acknowledging the medium to long term impact of high cost outcomes is not worth the short term expediency of buying workplace peace. More than ever, collective bargaining and “workplace strategy” is grabbing the attention of the C-Suite, given their outcomes significantly impact the bottom-line and with compounding effect.

In the area of major project infrastructure, labour shortages will intensify in 2018. This will see a return to high cost “greenfield” agreements to incentivise project stability. Expect higher than average wage outcomes for skilled and semi-skilled labour, at least in some sectors.

Sexual harassment claims

In the wake of high-profile sexual harassment allegations against prominent individuals both here and abroad, expect to see an increase in the number of claims made in 2018. The tolerance for sexual harassment has never been lower and incentive to bring a claim has never been higher.

CFMEU and MUA merger

Make no mistake – the proposed merger of the CFMEU and MUA will be high impact. The construction and mining sectors’ reliance on port services bears this out. In circumstances where massive shipments of infrastructure hit our shores for major project construction, the nationwide impact of greater CFMEU-style control will be tangible.

Litigation funded union claims

Expect to see large union claims backed by litigation funders. These funders, typically from the UK, bankroll large scale litigation punting on a profit from the outcome. For unions, such financial backing facilitates litigation with the aim of extracting large financial settlements. This will encourage claims on a scale rarely seen in Australia, with medium and large employers with “deep pockets” in their sights.

Modern slavery and supply chain reporting

Another issue for the boardroom. Globally, there is a growing commitment to eliminate the exploitative practices of modern slavery which includes forced and child labour. Corporates are reviewing their respective labour supply chains lest they are exposed to allegations of being complicit in slavery. Details can be found in A Modern Slavery Act for Australia.

Change of government?

Federal elections inevitably shine a spotlight on the workplace. Expect the same if an election is held in 2018. The ALP has already expressed its concerns with the current workplace regime – despite it being largely a product of its own making. The “tilt of bargaining power away from workers and to employers has gone too far” according to Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations Brendan O’Connor.

Many an employer would beg to differ. Workplace laws have moved like a pendulum with changes to government in Australia, albeit remaining relatively static under the Abbott /Turnbull Governments. But it seems the pendulum will continue in its current trajectory under Labor. The Government will seek to remain a small target on workplace relations in 2018 as the recent Cabinet changes reflect. For employers, the regulatory environment will only get tougher should we see a Labor Federal Government.


Subscribe to receive the next Workplace Law & Strategy blog direct to your inbox, as we explore these topics and more throughout 2018.

The Australian Government’s inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act reflects a growing domestic and international commitment to eliminate the exploitative practices of modern day slavery, and recommends new reporting and due diligence obligations for businesses operating in Australia.

Hidden in plain sight

Over 40 million people around the world are trapped in conditions of modern slavery, according to estimates from the Walk Free Foundation and International Labour Organization, including an estimated 4300 victims “hidden in plain sight” in Australia.

Modern slavery—a term that encompasses slavery, servitude, forced labour, trafficking in persons, forced marriage, child trafficking, debt bondage, child labour and exploitation, and other slavery-like practicesexists both at home and abroad; across a range of local industries, and in the global supply chains of organisations and businesses operating in Australia.

Global supply chain reporting

Released last week, the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in its inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia sets out 49 recommendations, including the introduction of an Australian Modern Slavery Act and the establishment of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

Similar to the United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, the final report recommends a mandatory supply chain reporting requirement that would require all entities operating in Australia with an annual revenue of over $50 million, regardless of where they are headquartered, to report on modern slavery risks in their global supply chains.

Companies, businesses, organisations, governments and other bodies that meet the threshold will, according to the report’s recommendations, need to publish annual Board-approved modern slavery statements within five months of the Australian financial year ending, detailing:

  • the organisation’s structure, its business and its supply chains
  • its policies in relation to modern slavery
  • its due diligence and remediation processes in relation to modern slavery in its business and supply chains
  • the parts of its business and supply chains where there is a risk of modern slavery taking place, and the steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk
  • its effectiveness in ensuring that modern slavery is not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against such performance indicators as it considers appropriate
  • the training about modern slavery available to its management and staff
  • any other actions taken.

While premised on the supply chain reporting requirements in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the report goes several steps further: recommending a central repository of modern slavery statements, a requirement that the Australian Government only procure from entities that publish a modern slavery statement, and the introduction of penalties and compliance measures for entities that fail to abide by the reporting requirements.

The recommendations are aligned with the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In particular, the requirement to report on due diligence processes relating to modern slavery risks echoes the UN Guiding Principles’ parameters for human rights due diligence—a process that includes assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed.

Impacts on the corporate landscape

The report signifies a groundswell of support for measures to address worker exploitation and modern slavery—issues already front of mind in Australia with the recent passage of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017, and situated within a growing domestic and international agenda on the human rights risks and responsibilities of businesses.

2018 portends to be a landmark year in the worldwide effort to eliminate modern slavery, with an expanding legislative and regulatory focus on the domestic labour practices and global supply chains of organisations, businesses and other entities operating in Australia.


Pete Talibart, Managing Partner of Seyfarth’s London office and a world-renowned expert on modern slavery, will be authoring blogs on the subject over the coming months and sharing his insights through direct involvement in the establishment of the UK Act.

To follow Seyfarth Shaw’s updates on the scope and substance of the proposed Australian Modern Slavery Act—and its implications as it develops into draft legislation in early 2018—please subscribe to our Workplace Law & Strategy blog.