Australia: ‘Go away money’— will it now go away? Settlement payments under the Fair Work Act

Last Updated: 19 March 2013
Article by Peter Punch

Is the Fair Work Act 'balanced' or not?

When the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (with its controversial 'WorkChoices' amendments of March 2006) was replaced by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 1 July 2009, the Federal Labor Government had as its mantra that its new 'Fair Work' regime struck the right balance between employers and employees — that is, it provided a fair level of employee protection while not unduly affecting business's proper priorities such as increasing productivity and encouraging flexibility.

In the three years since the Act's full commencement in January 2010, the government's contention about the Act's 'balance' has been repeatedly attacked from both sides of the political and industrial divide. Business groups, employer organisations and conservative political commentators have criticised the Act and its expanded employee protections and remedies (unfair dismissal, sham contracting, and the new 'General Protections' provisions introducing the concept of 'adverse action') as unduly obstructing employers from dealing with non-performing employees; thereby, leading to a stagnation of economic growth and loss of productivity. By contrast, unions have contended, among other things, that the Act is neither effective to fairly protect employees (eg in relation to requesting flexible working arrangements) nor consistent with Australia's international obligations to adequately protect collective bargaining.

The 2012 review of the Act

In December 2011, the Federal Government announced an independent review into the operation and effectiveness of the Act to be conducted by a three- person panel eminently qualified for the task: Professor Ron McCallum AO, the Honourable Michael Moore and Professor John Edwards. The review was conducted during the first half of 2012 and, consistent with its brief to undertake an evidence-based assessment, included an extensive consultation process with stakeholders across the spectrum of workplace relations, including the general public. The Panel's report containing the findings of its review, entitled Towards more productive and equitable workplaces: An evaluation of the Fair Work legislation, was released on 2 August 2012.

The notion of 'go away money'

The Panel's report identified that one of the most common complaints made by employer groups was that the number of claims filed by employees had skyrocketed since the Act came into force. A further complaint by employer groups was that the Act has led to an increase in the practice of employers paying compensation to settle claims, irrespective of their merits. It was contended that payments of so-called 'go away money' are frequently made by exasperated respondent employers who consider it more cost effective to acquiesce to demands for compensation rather than expend the time and resources needed to defend these claims to hearing, even when the claims are unmeritorious.

These complaints were supported to some extent by research on unfair dismissal cases undertaken by Fair Work Australia (newly renamed the Fair Work Commission) in 2010, which revealed that 79 per cent of applicants, 76 per cent of respondents, and 85 per cent of their respondent representatives, based their decision or advice to settle an unfair dismissal claim on a desire to avoid the cost, time, inconvenience or stress of further legal proceedings. Despite the fact that the Fair Work jurisdiction was designed to cater to self-represented parties, applicants frequently engage legal representatives, obliging respondent employers to either obtain their own legal representation at significant cost, or to themselves defend the claims being advanced by a legally qualified advocate.

As further evidence of this issue, the most recent quarterly report of the Fair Work Commission revealed that the final quarter of 2012 featured the highest number of unfair dismissal applications filed since the Act came into force, with 3867 unfair dismissal applications lodged in this three-month period. However, despite the substantial number of applications lodged during this period, only 39 (1 per cent) unfair dismissal applications heard during that same period led to a finding that the dismissal was unfair, with compensation awarded in only 31 of these matters, and reinstatement in only four.

What were the Panel's conclusions on 'go away money'?

Due to the confidential nature of FWC's conciliation process, the Panel could not assess the value of settlements reached at conciliation by reference to the content or objective merits of each claim. However, the Panel made the legitimate point that an employer's decision to settle a case is not always simply a commercial decision to make an unmeritorious claim 'go away' — it might well be (and no doubt is, at least sometimes) a reflection of the fact that the employer has been advised that it is genuinely at risk of losing the case.

Furthermore, the Panel pointed out that the Act restored unfair dismissal rights to employees of businesses with less than 100 employees who had lost those rights as a result of the 'WorkChoices' amendments. A likely effect of that 'reform' is that more smaller employers (who lack access to specialist human resources advice) came back into the unfair dismissal 'net', thus increasing the overall number of employers who would be more prone, through ignorance or inexperience, to getting a dismissal process 'wrong', whether procedurally or substantively.

What is the reality?

All of these matters, while logically cogent, do not detract from a fact that all experienced advisors in this field are well aware of — namely, that 'go away' money has always been a feature of the system. The real point is that sometimes the payment being made is truly unjustified on an objective basis, but nevertheless paid by the employer whose motivation is to 'get me out of this, I have a business to run'. However, in some cases, while the employer sincerely believes that the payment is unjustified, the advisor knows from experience that, on the facts of the matter, the payment is probably 'within the range' of a reasonable settlement.

In any event, the Panel report concluded that the Act was generally working as intended, and that the recent slow-down in productivity levels in Australia could not be attributed to the Act, because this downwards trend was evident both during and prior to the previous WorkChoices regime.

Measures to deal with the problem

While there has been some criticism of the Panel's membership (which is mainly uninformed and generally unfair, bearing in mind the eminence of its composition), and criticism of what to many employers were disappointing outcomes, no-one can deny that in the area of 'go away money' the Panel addressed the issue in some depth and looked quite closely at what measures could be adopted that might have a practical and just outcome.

The Federal Government implemented some of these measures in the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012, which amended the Act with effect from 1 January 2013. At the time of its passage, Federal Workplace Minister Bill Shorten declared that the various amendments to the employee protection provisions within the Act would provide a clear 'disincentive for frivolous or vexatious unfair dismissal claims'.

Of the various amendments to the Act, perhaps the most significant (and employer-friendly) was the introduction of a standardised 21-day time limit on all dismissal-based employee remedies. While this standardised time limit extends the previous 14-day time limit for unfair dismissal claims, it is a very significant decrease from the previous 60-day time limit for General Protections claims involving dismissal. And although the new uniform 21-day time limit for all applications may well widen the gates to a greater number of unfair dismissal applications, this may merely serve to render valid the small percentage of applications that were dismissed when they were filed out of time due to ignorance or inaction. Importantly, the uniform 21-day time for dismissal-based applications effectively eliminates the capacity for applicants to threaten or commence alternative general protection proceedings if their unfair dismissal claims are not resolved to their satisfaction at conciliation.

The Act now also permits the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application where an applicant has been unreasonable or dilatory in conducting a claim, such as by failing to comply with a settlement agreement, or failing to attend a scheduled conciliation conference, or failing to comply with an order or procedure of the Commission.

Further, the Act now confers an increased power upon the Commission to issue costs orders against parties who have unreasonably failed to agree to terms of settlement that could have led to the matter being discontinued, or who have, by an unreasonable act or omission, caused the other side to incur costs. (Ironically, perhaps, these 'new' powers are in fact 'recycled' provisions that were found in the 'WorkChoices' amendments to the previous Act!)

Likewise, the increased powers of the Commission to block and dispose of applications informally will provide respondent employers with further protection against vexatious or delinquent applicants, and provide a greater incentive for applicants to either settle or discontinue at the initial conciliation stage rather than taking the risk of proceeding further.

Finally, depending on their interpretation and application, the expanded cost provisions contained within the amended Act may ultimately create a deterrent effect against unmeritorious claims, protecting employers from expending time and resources in defending claims in the first place.

Will the new 'reforms' solve the problem?

There is no doubt that these amendments are sensible measures. One of the constant complaints of employers is that former employees can bring claims with impunity, muck them around, not turn up, then expect a financial windfall whatever the reality, and so forth. These new provisions, which are on this subject a replica of the previous 'WorkChoices' provisions, arm employers with at least some weapons to deter claims, which they did not have during the first three years of the Act's operation.

As the amended Act is still in its infancy, and the effect of the Fair Work Commission's new cost powers are untested, it is too early to determine whether the practice of paying 'go away money' can be eradicated or reduced. But what they hopefully will do is restore some balance to the process — in particular, so that employees come to appreciate that while they have rights, those rights must be exercised responsibly, otherwise there may well be adverse financial consequences for them.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.