We don't lose change disputes because we don't know the rules of consultation. We lose them because we put disconnected fragments on the floor — a roster change here, a location change there — and ask people to consult on each in isolation. So before we build the craft, we get the floor itself crystal clear: who's covered, what triggers the duty, what it requires, and where it stops. Master the floor, and consulting on a connected picture becomes far easier than fighting fragments ever was.
Getting consultation wrong has real consequences: disputes in the SA Employment Tribunal, delayed or blocked change, and lost trust with staff and unions. We've felt all three. So we treat the floor with respect and precision.
But knowing the floor cold also frees us. Once we're confident exactly what the obligation requires, we can stop consulting nervously on every fragment — and instead meet the duty properly on one connected picture. The rules don't change. What we bring to them does.
For the Service, the requirement to consult on change doesn't come from one place — it's reinforced at several levels at once. Each layer adds weight; together they make consultation non-negotiable.
Contains a mandatory requirement for public sector agencies to consult employees and their representative organisations on matters that affect public sector employment. The obligation is described by the Commissioner as legal and binding on all agencies.
The agreements covering our people each carry their own consultation procedures for major change — the relevant salaried enterprise agreement, the relevant medical officers’ enterprise agreement, and the nursing, allied health and other occupational agreements.
The state industrial framework under which these agreements are made and approved, and under which disputes — including about consultation — are dealt with by the South Australian Employment Tribunal.
Separate consultation duties apply for work health & safety matters, and additional responsibilities flow from sector legislation such as the relevant sector health legislation. Different change, sometimes different consultation path.
A practical first step in any change: identify which agreement or award covers the affected staff, because the specific consultation process can differ. Across the Service you'll typically be dealing with several at once.
Operational, corporate and administrative staff — typically employed under public-sector legislation and the main salaried agreement.
the relevant salaried enterprise agreement
Salaried medical and clinical staff — often sitting under sector-specific health legislation and their own agreement.
the relevant medical officers’ enterprise agreement
Other occupational groups may sit under separate nursing, allied health or weekly-paid agreements, each with an underpinning award.
Relevant occupational EA + underpinning award
The obligation under the standard major-change model isn't open-ended. It's triggered by a specific test. Walking it in order tells you whether the formal duty is engaged.
The duty is generally triggered by a definite decision to introduce change — not by early, exploratory thinking. (Though best practice is to engage people well before this point.)
A major change to production, program, organisation, structure or technology — for us, things like restructures, new operating models, role redesign, or new systems.
This is the key test. If the change is likely to significantly affect employees (see below), the formal consultation obligation is engaged.
Once triggered, the duty is to consult the affected employees and their representatives as soon as practicable after the decision — before implementation.
The standard model clause gives examples of effects that count as significant. If your change could produce any of these, treat the duty as engaged.
Job losses or redundancies — termination of employment.
Changes to composition or size of the workforce, or to skills required.
Reduced promotion or tenure — fewer opportunities or job security.
The need for retraining or transfer to other work or locations.
Restructuring of jobs — altered duties, roles or reporting lines.
Changes to hours of work, or the elimination of roles.
"Consultation" has a specific meaning — it's more than a heads-up, and less than a veto. These are the core obligations the standard model and the Commissioner's guidance describe.
Tell affected employees and their representatives about the change as soon as practicable after the decision is made.
Share the nature of the change, its expected effects, and other matters likely to affect employees. The duty is to provide information that exists — not to create new documents or hand over everything.
Provide a real chance for affected employees and their representatives to contribute their views before the change is implemented — early enough to make a difference.
Promptly consider matters raised. Consultation must be meaningful — the feedback has to be able to influence the outcome, not be heard after the fact.
Apply any specific steps, timeframes or forums set out in the applicable enterprise agreement, and use the dispute procedure if disagreement arises.
Notice something about the five obligations: every one of them is easier to meet well on a connected picture than on a disconnected fragment. The rules aren't our problem. The way we feed them is.
"Why this roster change?" has no good answer in isolation, so it gets disputed. We provide information about one piece, can't show how it connects, and every separate ask reopens the whole argument. The obligations get met technically — and fail in practice.
"Here's the change story, here's where this fits, here's the rationale." The same five obligations now land: the information is meaningful, the opportunity to respond is real, and people can engage with a story instead of resisting a fragment. Compliance and good change become the same act.
This is the bridge from Part 1: the floor done well means meeting our duty on a connected picture — not consulting harder on scattered pieces.
Understanding what consultation isn't protects us from two opposite mistakes: treating it as a tick-box, or fearing it gives employees a power of veto it doesn't. Here's the honest line.
These misunderstandings cause most of the friction. Naming them keeps us confident and accurate.
We know who's covered, what triggers the duty, what it requires, and where it ends. That confidence is what lets us stop over-indexing on each fragment and start consulting on a connected whole. Next: getting the full change picture connected, and the discipline that turns us into practitioners of change.
Continue to Part 3 · The Practitioner of Change