Abstract
Significant workplace change requires consultation, and standard consultation obligations exist under legislation and statutory instruments. However, those provisions offer minimal guidance on how to approach consultation. The consultation cases tend to focus on compliance, adding little beyond saying consultation needs to be meaningful. Building on the foundation laid by the 2021 decision in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd, this article considers what the parameters of the obligation to consult might — or should — be. It shows that there is an over emphasis in the authorities on timing, as a compliance trigger, rather than the substance of the obligation, and major decisions continue to show the obligation is poorly understood. It argues that clear parameters are needed on how to implement the duty to consult, and that these parameters need to come from statute or clear authority of the courts. Without restricting the inherent flexibility that is needed for consultation to work, or impeding the employer’s prerogative to make decisions, it asserts that there is a need for a deeper legal underpinning, and more active obligations, to shift the concept away from the conflictual paradigm of consultation being ‘triggered’ towards a more collaborative and productive approach.