Login or become a Workplace Express subscriber

JobKeeper rules emerge, but confusion continues

The Opposition and legal experts have questioned why the JobKeeper rules appear to leave out the "one in, all in" requirement spelt out in their explanatory statement, and have canvassed what it might mean for employers wanting to negotiate trade-offs.

You need to be logged in to read this article.

Subscribers log in here

Having trouble using your subscription? Contact us for help or check our FAQ page here for answers to commonly asked questions.

Non subscribers: Access Workplace Express by starting your subscription here.

Haven't seen Workplace Express before? For a 28-day free trial sign up here.

Go back to our homepage here.

Latest news
Monash marked down for agreement-flouting payment failure CFMEU women slam Irving funding decision Stockbrokers award-free, court affirms on appeal Appeal court sinks teeth into "employee" definition New FWC member's "secret weapon"
Court and tribunal decisions
Monash marked down for agreement-flouting payment failure Stockbrokers award-free, court affirms on appeal Work for multiple Uber entities counts in deactivation case Departmental move a transfer, not a dismissal: FWC Unfairly dismissed overseas paralegal wins $11,000 payout
Bullying
Departmental move a transfer, not a dismissal: FWC Parliament broadens NSW IRC's remit No continued bullying risk after contract terminated: FWC Commissioner rejects race bias claims "Bullied" worker failed to heed reasonable demands: FWC