Workplace Wizards

HR & Employment Law in 2025: What does the Future of Work Look Like?

As businesses navigate ever-changing industrial relations (IR) and human resources (HR), it’s clear that we’re in a transitional era for employment and workplace culture. The past year has introduced sweeping changes, and the year ahead is set to solidify many of these transformations. But these developments aren’t just isolated policy shifts, they’re part of a broader movement reshaping how we define work, employment relationships, and corporate responsibility. 

So, what do these trends tell us about where we’re headed? What does the rise of AI, changes to casual work, the criminalisation of wage theft, and the increasing power of employees in workplace negotiations signal about the future of work? 

Through these changes, and the ways in which we’ve seen some of these changes impact the workplaces we closely work with, we can see that a big picture is coming into focus: we’re moving towards a workplace model where transparency, fairness, and long-term sustainability take centre stage. There’s a growing recognition of just how much of an impact our ways of working have on us and those around us, and so the question for businesses is no longer whether they need to adapt, it’s about how quickly they can do so. 

2024: A Year that Redefined Work and Employment

Over the past year, we’ve seen some major shifts in how work is structured, how workers are protected, and how businesses are held accountable. But these changes aren’t happening in a vacuum. They are part of a broader trend of regulatory bodies stepping in to shape a fairer, more balanced workforce, one that prioritises equity, stability, and employee well-being over short-term business flexibility. 

The Rise of AI in HR – The Automation Boom and the Ethical Reckoning

The integration of AI into HR has been one of the most rapid shifts in workforce management. Businesses have increasingly used AI to screen resumes, track employee productivity, and forecast workforce needs. AI has brought efficiency, but it has also sparked serious ethical concerns. 

We’ve seen concerns about algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and excessive workplace surveillance gain increasing. It’s a whole new world and it’s seen both employees and regulators alike pushing back, questioning whether AI-driven decisions can truly be fair and whether companies should have greater accountability in how these technologies are applied. 

So, where to from here? Expect new regulations around AI use in HR, requiring businesses to be more transparent about how decisions are made and ensure AI doesn’t reinforce existing biases. And as we continue to understand and integrate this new world into our current modes of work, you can also expect to see a push towards a human-centered approach to technology adoption, where innovation is balanced with ethical responsibility. 

The Right to Disconnect

Arguably one of the most buzzworthy changes in 2024 was the introduction of the Right to Disconnect in August 2024. Buzzworthy because it was seen a more than just a workplace policy shift. It reflected a larger cultural change in how we view work. Employees are no longer willing to sacrifice their personal time for the expectation of constant availability, and the law now supports that stance. 

The Right to Disconnect provisions give employees the right to refuse unreasonable work-related contact outside of their normal hours, and early disputes in the Fair Work Commission are already setting important precedents on what is considered “reasonable” contact. 

This signals a fundamental shift in workplace expectations. Employers who fail to respect these new boundaries won’t just risk legal disputes, they’ll risk losing talent in a market where flexibility and well-being are top priorities for workers. 

The larger trend? A redefinition of work-life balance as a fundamental right, not just a company perk. Businesses that embrace this shift – through setting clear communication policies, encouraging better work-life balance, and respecting employee boundaries – will be the ones that retain and attract top talent in the years to come. 

Criminalising Wage Theft

Day 1 of 2025 and we’ve already had one of this year’s most striking changes with the criminalisation of wage theft, which introduces a new era of accountability for businesses. 

Under the new laws, intentional underpayment of wages, allowances, or superannuation is now a criminal offense, with severe penalties for employers who fail to comply. Business owners, executives, and HR professionals can now be personally liable, facing up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $8.25 million or three times the underpayment amount. 

The broader implication here is clear: wage theft is no longer seen as a “mistake” or a compliance issue and is now treated as a serious financial crime. We see this as marking a turning point in how employment law is enforced. Instead of waiting for companies to self-correct, regulators are taking a proactive and punitive approach. This signals a future where businesses can no longer afford to be reactive about compliance, they’ll have to be proactive in ensuring they are following best practices at all times. 

Casual Work & The Future of Employment

For years, casual work in Australia has operated in a rather grey area, giving employers flexibility while often leaving workers without job security. But as of August 2024, casual work is now defined more clearly: a worker can only be classified as casual if there is no firm commitment to ongoing work. 

This means that even if an employee is on a casual contract, their actual work patterns and expectations matter more in determining whether they are entitled to permanent employment status. 

At the same time, 2024 also saw gig economy workers gaining greater protections, bringing them closer to traditional employees in terms of rights and entitlements. New laws now ensure that gig workers can’t be unfairly deactivated from platforms and have the right to collective bargaining, allowing them to negotiate better pay and conditions. 

Looking at the bigger picture here, we’re seeing a slow but steady erosion of the traditional “casual work” model in favour of more structured, stable employment arrangements. As more workers demand job security and benefits, businesses will need to rethink their workforce structures. 

Where are we Headed? A Look into the Crystal Ball

In the day-to-day hustle of work admin, it’s easy to see these all as just a rolling timeline of changes which translate into checklists to enforce. This is important from a compliance point of view, but to be on the front foot as a business with future success on its mind, we suggest taking a step back to consider the bigger picture here: what do all these changes tell us about the direction of work? 

What we’re witnessing a major restructuring of the employment landscape, towards a system that prioritises stability, fairness, and worker protections: 

  • AI and automation are here to stay, but their use must be transparent and ethical. 
  • Work-life balance is no longer just a policy, it’s a legal right. 
  • Wage compliance is no longer just about avoiding fines, it’s about avoiding criminal liability. 
  • The gig economy is being reshaped to ensure workers have more bargaining power and job security. 
  • Casual employment is moving towards a future that leans toward permanent, structured employment models. 

This means that the ability to adapt will be the key to survival for businesses. Those who resist these shifts may find themselves facing legal risks, struggling to attract talent, and dealing with workforce instability. But those who embrace these trends, update their practices, and build workplaces that align with these new expectations will be the ones who thrive in the future of work. 

So, the real question isn’t just what’s changing in 2025, it’s really more about asking how ready your business is for what comes next.  

Share
Like what you read? Share this article!
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Contact us

Get in contact with a workplace lawyer or advisor to access initial advice about your workplace requirements.
Harrini Ratnanesan
Harrini Ratnanesan

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

compliance

Delayed Bonus Payments

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia has shone light on the risks employers face when structuring bonus payments in contracts.  Deferred bonuses are commonly used by employers as a retention tool and to maintain high employee performance over longer periods of time. However, the recent decision of Wollermann v Fortrend Securities Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 103 highlights the legal risks associated with these incentive arrangements, particularly in circumstances where the contractual bonus payment clauses are not drafted correctly.   What does the law say? S323(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) states that incentive-based payments and bonuses which become payable must be paid in full, in money and at least monthly.  What happened? In the case of Wollermann, it was found that the employer’s attempt to spread contractual bonus payments over a period of time was in breach of s323(1) of the FW Act. In this case, the employment contracts included a bonus scheme where, upon generating monthly commissions exceeding USD 50,000, the employees were entitled to a bonus equating to 10% of the excess commissions. The bonus payment clause stipulated that 50% of the bonus would be paid on the 15th day of the following month, while the remaining 50% was deferred for seven months. Payment of the bonus was also subject to forfeiture if employment ceased during the deferral period. Justice OCallaghan found that:  the obligation to pay the bonus arose immediately upon the employees meeting the performance criteria outlined in the contracts;  the deferral and forfeiture clauses were inconsistent with s 323(1) of the FW Act; and  the clauses effectively withheld earned entitlements beyond the permissible timeframe and conditions set by the FW Act.   What does this mean for you? In light of this decision, employers should be reviewing their contracts and the wording of the bonus payment clauses, particularly in relation to deferred bonuses and forfeiture conditions. It needs to be made clear in contracts that bonuses do not become payable until the deferred period reaches completion.    Workplace Wizards has a team of legally trained employment consultants who have worked with a variety of businesses to help resolve workplace issues. We’ve supported businesses of all sizes with solutions that address the unique challenges of high-stakes workplace environments—from conflict resolution training and refining policies to reviewing employee contracts. By tailoring our services to your specific needs, we’ll help you maintain a productive, harmonious culture where everyone can thrive. Reach out to learn more about our specialized workplace solutions and gain peace of mind for your organization. You can call us on 03 9087 6949 or email support@workplacewizards.com.au.  

compliance

Employee Choice Pathway: Everything You Need To Know

Casual employees now hold the power to request permanent employment From 26 February of this year, new changes came into effect for casual workers, carving the way for them to become more actively involved in the right to transition to permanent employment. Eligible casual employees are now able to provide written notice to their employer to change to full-time or part-employment under the new Employee Choice Pathway. While the right to casual conversion is nothing new, the power has now shifted to the employee to initiate this process. Once an employer receives a request from an employee to convert to permanent employment, the employer needs to respond to the request within 21 days. Employers should take note that the bar for an employer to refuse the casual conversion is high and any rejection reasoning will need to be more than just a mere inconvenience and will need to be reasonable and legitimate. Importantly, not all casuals will be eligible to request this transition to part or full time employment. The following requirements must be satisfied: · the casual employee must have worked for an employer for more than six months or 12 months if the employer is a small business; · any work performed by the employee before 26 August 2024 will not count towards service for the purpose of eligibility to access the employment pathway; · the casual employee must believe they no longer meet the definition of a casual employee; · the casual employee must not have a current dispute with their employer about changing to permanent employment; and · the casual employee must not have had any previous notification refused about changing to permanent employment in the past six months. For small businesses, this change does not come into effect until 26 August 2025. Employers need to be proactive and start preparing for if and when these requests for casual conversion start filtering through. Businesses should be considering their operational requirements and be ready to respond to these requests promptly to avoid penalties. What can you be doing now in your workplace? Identify Eligible Casual EmployeesReview your casual workforce to track who may become eligible/are already eligible. Pay attention to service dates, hours worked, and role consistency. Train Managers and Update HR ProcessesEnsure HR staff and team leaders understand the new rules, including the 21-day response requirement and what constitutes a valid refusal. Communicate the Changes to Casual StaffProactively inform casual employees about their new rights and how they can request a transition to permanent employment under the Employee Choice Pathway. Assess Operational ImpactStart forecasting how casual conversion might affect workforce planning, resourcing, and budgets — especially if multiple employees seek conversion at once. Workplace Wizards has a team of legally trained employment consultants who have worked with a variety of businesses to help resolve workplace issues. Our legally trained employment consultants can help. We’ve supported businesses of all sizes with solutions that address the unique challenges of varying workplace environments—from conflict resolution training and refining policies to reviewing employee contracts. By tailoring our services to your specific needs, we’ll help you maintain a productive, harmonious culture where everyone can thrive. Reach out to learn more about our specialized workplace solutions and gain peace of mind for your organization. You can call us on 03 9087 6949 or email support@workplacewizards.com.au.  

outsource hr services
complaint

When Internal Power Struggles Go Public: Lessons from Purvinas v Wyse

Workplace disputes are nothing new, but when they spill into the courts, they can have far-reaching consequences. The recent Federal Court decision in Purvinas v Wyse [2024] FCA 1122 serves as a cautionary tale about union governance, legal strategy, and the financial risks of unmeritorious litigation.  Stephen Purvinas, the Federal Secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA), clashed with the union’s Federal Executive over who really called the shots at work. The Executive accused him of making big decisions without their approval. In response, they passed a no-confidence motion in February 2024, stripping him of his ability to represent the union without their say-so.  Unhappy with the decision, Purvinas took the fight to court, arguing that the motion was invalid and against the union’s rules. But instead of a legal victory, he walked away with a hefty indemnity costs order, meaning he now has to pay a significant chunk of the other side’s legal fees.  Why Did the Court Rule Against Purvinas? To put it simply, his case didn’t hold up. The court found that his lawsuit was more about putting pressure on the Executive than about fixing a genuine legal issue.  When reviewing Purvinas’s actions before, during, and after the court case, it was found that:  Before the lawsuit, he made exaggerated claims that the Executive’s motion would stop union staff from doing their jobs.  During the lawsuit, he incorrectly argued that the Executive’s decision was unlawful and prevented him from delegating tasks—even though the rules didn’t support this claim.  After withdrawing the case, it was clear he had used legal action as a power move against the Executive, rather than as a way to resolve an actual dispute.  Another key issue? His credibility as a witness. When questioned in court, Purvinas relied heavily on documents instead of simply explaining things in his own words. The judge wasn’t convinced and only accepted his evidence when backed up by independent documents. On the other hand, the Executive’s witnesses, including their President Rodney Wyse, came across as far more reliable.   Ultimately, Justice Raper decided that Purvinas brought the case for the wrong reasons—and that meant he had to pay up.  The Costly Fallout Most of the time in workplace disputes, both sides cover their own legal costs, no matter who wins. But there’s an exception: if the court finds that a lawsuit was brought without a solid reason or for an ulterior motive, it can order the losing party to cover the other side’s costs. That’s exactly what happened here.  Justice Raper ruled that Purvinas’s legal action was vexatious (basically, a waste of the court’s time) and ordered indemnity costs against him. This means he won’t just pay standard legal costs, he’ll likely be covering a much bigger portion of the Executive’s legal fees.   Interesting Bits to Note  Be careful with legal threats! Purvinas spent months threatening legal action before finally going through with it. The judge saw this as a tactic to pressure the Executive rather than a genuine case.  Courts don’t like power plays disguised as lawsuits. This case was less about legal rights and more about internal politics within the union.  Workplace law doesn’t usually work this way. It’s rare for workplace disputes to end with a costs order, and even rarer for someone to get hit with indemnity costs. This case is a reminder that if you take a weak case to court, it can seriously backfire.  A Union Drama with a Price Tag  At its core, this case wasn’t just about legal technicalities, it was about power, control, and the dangers of taking the wrong fight to court. Purvinas thought he was standing his ground, but instead, he found himself stuck with a big legal bill and a reputation for bringing an unconvincing case.  For union officials, employees, and workplace lawyers, the message is clear:  Stick to the rules when running an organisation.  Think twice before rushing to court over internal disputes.  If your case isn’t strong, it might cost you more than you expect.  At WWLegal, we are a new breed of workplace lawyers who streamline the complexities of Australian employment law to significantly benefit both individuals and businesses. Our team provides expert legal representation tailored to your unique situation, ensuring knowledgeable support that aligns with your needs. If you’re facing employment law challenges or need expert advice, WWLegal is ready to help. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and discover how we can assist you in navigating employment law with confidence and expertise.