New Fair Work Commission Rules - Minimum Rate of Pay for All Farm Workers across Australia
October 29, 2026
Author name
What are the Fair Work Commission’s new rules?
In what has been described as one of the most significant industrial decisions of modern times, the Fair Work Commission has ruled that workers on a piece rate must now be guaranteed a minimum wage under the Horticultural Award.
For decades many workers in the fruit and vege industries have been paid according to the amount of produce they harvest which is also known as a piece rate. However, those practices are set to change after the Commission’s recent ruling.
The ruling comes after the Australian Workers Union (AWU) lodged a claim with the Commission, arguing that every worker should be guaranteed a minimum casual rate, currently $25.41 per hour. The Commission "expressed the view that the existing pieceworker provisions in the Horticulture Award are not fit for purpose", and “do not provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net as required by the Act”.
Who do the new rules apply to?
The horticulture industry includes all fruits, vegetables, grains, seeds, hops, nuts, fungi, olives, flowers and other specialised crops (excluding broadacre field crops). Examples of employees covered by the Horticulture Award include:
- fruit or vegetable pickers;
- sorters and packers, including employees using machines and equipment;
- drivers of lorries, harvesters, forklifts and tractors; and
- employees performing inventory, store control and quality assurance/control.
The Horticulture Award also covers labour hire businesses and their employees who are placed with an organisation in the horticulture industry.
How will the rules work?
Prior to the ruling, if an employee was being paid under a piecework rate system, they may not necessarily receive the equivalent of the minimum wage. Typically, this applied to slower pickers who worked below the average of other pickers. Piece rates were used to incentivise workers but this concept may now be obsolete.
The new changes essentially act as a safety net so that all horticultural workers will be guaranteed a set minimum hourly rate. The piecework rates can still operate and be used by farmers but workers now have a second option and a safety net.
What are the implications on farmers?
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has said that “the insertion of a minimum wage floor with consequential time recording provisions in the piece work clause is necessary to ensure that the Horticulture Award achieves the modern awards objective”.
However, federal agriculture minister David Littleproud suggested that “the ruling could mean Australians will be asked to pay higher prices for their produce, as the cost of producing that produce should be reflected at the checkout”.
The National Farmers' Federation have also raised concerns and said they oppose the changes arguing that ‘piece rates promote productivity and any change to the award could drive farmers out of business.’
The changes to the Award do not prevent farmers from using piecework agreements with their employees, but it is important that farmers are aware of the rules regarding piecework rates. The rules include:
- if an employer uses piecework rates to pay their employees, they should be able to demonstrate how they calculated their piecework rates;
- piecework rates must be set at the time a piecework agreement is made;
- a piecework agreement must be made before work starts under the agreement; and
- piecework rates must also be reviewed regularly.
By Matilda Lloyd (Paralegal)
If you would like more information about how to understand and use piecework agreements or how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451 or by email at
office@bailiwicklegal.com.au.
For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au/
The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
For many growers, the biggest barrier to pursuing a claim is not the legal process itself. It is the relationship. In regional communities, suppliers, agronomists and growers often work together over many years, and many farmers are understandably reluctant to raise concerns if they believe it may damage a valued business relationship. Recent discussions regarding the performance of certain canola varieties have highlighted an important issue for farming businesses: protecting your legal rights does not necessarily mean taking an aggressive approach or ending a long-standing commercial relationship. Where concerns arise about the performance of a seed variety, chemical or other agricultural product, growers are often hesitant to make inquiries or seek compensation because the supplier may be a trusted local business or a person they have dealt with for decades. However, raising legitimate concerns and seeking advice should not be viewed as a personal attack. In many cases, suppliers will notify their insurer as soon as a significant claim is raised. From that point, discussions regarding liability and compensation are often managed by insurers, loss assessors and legal representatives. As a result, a grower may effectively be dealing with an insurance claim rather than a dispute directly with the supplier. That distinction is important. A claim can often be investigated and resolved without permanently damaging an otherwise productive business relationship. At the same time, growers should be aware that not every supplier is insured for every type of loss. Some businesses may not carry insurance that responds to large-scale agricultural claims, while others may not have sufficient coverage where multiple growers are affected. Early advice can therefore be critical in understanding both your legal position and the practical realities of recovery. If you are experiencing concerns regarding crop performance, keep detailed records, retain product packaging, batch information, invoices and correspondence, obtain independent agronomic advice, and seek legal advice before signing any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Protecting your rights does not have to mean burning bridges. Often, the best outcomes are achieved through early communication, careful investigation and practical resolution. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
One of the most common concerns we hear from growers experiencing issues with agricultural products is: "I don't want to sue someone I've known for years." In regional communities, business relationships matter. Suppliers, agronomists and growers often work together over many seasons, and many farmers are understandably reluctant to take action if they believe doing so may damage those relationships. However, pursuing a claim does not necessarily mean attacking a long-standing business relationship. In many cases, the supplier will notify its insurer of the claim and the matter will be managed by the insurer and its representatives. Where insurance is available, discussions regarding compensation often proceed through the insurer's claims process rather than as a personal dispute between grower and supplier. For that reason, growers should not assume that raising legitimate concerns about product performance will automatically result in the loss of an important commercial relationship. That said, every situation is different. Some suppliers may not carry insurance for particular losses, and others may not have sufficient insurance coverage to respond to multiple large-scale claims. In those circumstances, early advice can be particularly important, both to preserve evidence and to understand the practical options available. If you believe a seed variety, chemical or other agricultural product has not performed as represented, keep detailed records, obtain independent agronomic advice and seek legal advice before signing any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement. The earlier advice is obtained, the more options are generally available. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Recent concerns regarding the performance of certain canola varieties have attracted significant attention across the Western Australian grain industry. The issue was recently discussed on the ABC WA Country Hour, where Philip Brunner, Director of Bailiwick Legal, commented on the legal issues that may arise when agricultural products fail to perform as expected. Farmers understand that crop performance can be affected by seasonal conditions, rainfall, frost, pests, disease and other factors beyond their control. However, different considerations may arise where a seed, chemical or agricultural product does not perform consistently with the representations made by the supplier at the time of sale. A well-publicised dispute involving John Snooke, a grower from Cunderdin, highlighted these issues when concerns were raised regarding the performance of a herbicide-tolerant canola variety. Following intervention by the WA Department of Consumer Protection, compensation was ultimately paid to affected growers. As input costs continue to increase, growers should be aware that legal protections may be available where a product: Does not match its description; Is not fit for its intended purpose; or Fails to perform in accordance with representations made by the supplier. If a crop is underperforming, growers should retain seed tags, invoices, marketing materials and paddock records, obtain independent agronomic advice and notify the supplier as soon as possible. Early evidence can be critical in assessing whether a legal claim may exist. Importantly, growers should not sign any settlement agreement, release or non-disclosure agreement (NDA) without first obtaining independent legal advice. These documents may limit future rights or prevent growers from discussing the issue with others who may be similarly affected. Author: Matilda Lloyd, Associate Director of Bailiwick Legal, assists farming families and agribusinesses throughout Western Australia with commercial disputes and risk management. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal: West Perth Office on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au Bridgetwoen Office on 08 6288 6240 or email bridgetown@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
