Authors: Emily Haar, Ben Motro

Has this happened to your organisation? You’re negotiating an exit with an employee, or perhaps you are working through a conciliation or mediation following the filing of an employment-related claim, and you think you have a resolution, though nothing has been signed yet. You might wonder, do we have a binding or enforceable settlement, even without anything signed?

In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, Ben Motro and Emily Haar push past some of the legalese to work through when a settlement agreement is binding, how particular Court and Tribunal processes can impact the steps taken to “get to the deal”, and what common “settlement” phrases mean and how they may impact the enforceability (or not) of a settlement proposal.

For more practical tips from our Employment Relations team, we are hosting several Workplace Training events throughout the year, including on managing common employee-claims. Subscribe here to ensure you never miss an invite to one of our events.

For additional insights into best-practice drafting of deeds of release more generally, see our on-demand training here, and our summary of the Elisha v Vision Australia decision here.

Authors: Emily Haar, Andrew Stewart

In this special election episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, just in time for your second April-long weekend, Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant, and Emily Haar, Partner, discuss the various policy announcements from the major (and minor) political parties, stakeholders’ wish lists for reform, and other “things to watch out for” ahead of the Federal Election on 3 May 2025.

Following the election result becoming known, Piper Alderman will be hosting a national roadshow of in-person events where Professor Andrew Stewart will provide further insights about what to expect over the next Parliamentary term. Subscribe here to ensure you never miss an invite to one of our events.

Authors: Emily Haar, Andrew Stewart

As part of the recent Federal Budget, the Treasurer announced plans to ban “non-compete” clauses in employment contracts for employees earning below the high income threshold (currently $175,000 per annum) from 2027, to much media attention. But with the finer details to be the subject of further consultation (and a Federal election on 3 May 2025 in the meantime), what might be on the horizon in this space?

In this episode of Employment Law for the Time Poor, Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant, and Emily Haar, Partner, discuss the difference between “non compete clauses” and other post-employment restraint clauses, the policy, productivity, and research bases for reform, what these reforms might look like in practice, as well as some “real life” considerations for businesses to best protect their interests now.

These discussions show that a one-size-fits-all approach to the protection of an employer’s interests in its client and customer relationships, if it ever were enough, will not cut it going forward if labour mobility significantly increases. If businesses are less able to rely on contractual post-employment restraint clauses, alternative methods to otherwise protect confidential information and intellectual property, such as technology and a strong internal innovation culture, become ever more important.