When Should an Employee Move to a Higher Award Classification?

An employee’s modern award classification should reflect the work they actually perform, not simply the title written in their employment contract.

As roles develop, employees may begin solving more complex problems, making decisions independently, supervising colleagues or accepting responsibility for an entire process. If their classification remains unchanged, their minimum pay rate may no longer reflect the level of work being performed.

The difficulty for employers is recognising when a role has genuinely moved to a higher classification rather than merely expanded within its existing level.

A clear classification review can help employers make this distinction and reduce the risk of employee underpayments.

What determines an employee’s award classification?

Modern award classifications, sometimes described as levels or grades, contain descriptions of the work performed at different levels.

Depending on the award, the classification descriptions may consider:

• The duties performed
• The complexity of the work
• The employee’s skills and experience
• Required qualifications
• The level of supervision received
• The degree of independent judgement exercised
• Responsibility for people, processes or equipment
• Whether the employee supervises other employees

Each classification is usually connected to a minimum pay rate. Employers therefore need to identify the classification that most appropriately reflects the employee’s role.

Indicative job titles in an award can be helpful, but they are examples rather than a complete list of every role that may fall within the classification. The assessment should consider the employee’s actual work.

A new job title does not automatically change the classification

Internal job titles and award classifications serve different purposes.

A business may change an employee’s title from Administrator to Senior Administrator to recognise their experience or improve career progression. That title change does not automatically mean the employee has moved to a higher award classification.

Equally, an employee may begin performing higher-level work without receiving a new title.

The employer should examine what changed in the role:

• Has the complexity of the work increased?
• Is the employee making decisions they previously referred to a manager?
• Are they responsible for supervising or coordinating others?
• Do they now require specialist knowledge?
• Has their accountability for outcomes increased?
• Are the additional duties ongoing?

The substance of the role matters more than the wording of the title.

Signs that a role may require reclassification

No single factor determines the correct classification in every award. However, several changes commonly indicate that a role should be reviewed.

The employee performs more complex work

An employee may have moved beyond routine or clearly defined tasks and become responsible for interpreting information, resolving unfamiliar issues or selecting the most appropriate course of action.

The relevant question is not simply whether the employee is doing more work. It is whether the nature and complexity of the work have changed.

An increase in workload alone may not support reclassification if the duties remain at the same level. An increase in responsibility, judgement or technical complexity is more significant.

The employee works with less supervision

An employee may initially work under close direction but gradually become responsible for planning and completing work independently.

A higher classification may be appropriate where the employee now:

• Sets their own work priorities
• Resolves issues without regular approval
• Interprets policies or procedures
• Provides advice to others
• Escalates only unusual or high-risk matters
• Takes responsibility for completing an entire process

Working alone does not necessarily establish a higher level. The assessment should consider the degree of judgement and accountability involved.

The employee supervises or coordinates other employees

Responsibility for other employees can be an important classification factor.

The employee may:

• Allocate daily work
• Coordinate a shift or work area
• Train new employees
• Monitor work quality
• Approve routine operational decisions
• Provide performance feedback
• Act as the main escalation point
• Manage rosters or workflow

An employee does not always need formal authority to hire or dismiss staff before supervisory responsibilities become relevant.

The applicable award may also provide a leading hand or supervisory allowance instead of, or in addition to, a higher classification. The wording of the award should be reviewed carefully.

The role requires additional skills or qualifications

A change in the skills, knowledge, licence or qualification required for a role may support a higher classification.

However, the fact that an employee personally holds an advanced qualification does not automatically require reclassification. The qualification should generally be relevant to the work the employee is required to perform.

Consider whether:

• The qualification is required for the role
• The employee uses the qualification in their work
• The award expressly refers to that qualification
• The employee now performs specialised or technical duties
• The business relies on the employee’s additional capability

The employee has greater accountability

A role may warrant review when the employee becomes accountable for more significant outcomes.

This may include responsibility for:

• Operational performance
• Customer outcomes
• Financial transactions
• Compliance or safety
• Equipment or inventory
• Confidential information
• Project delivery
• Team performance
• Business-critical decisions

The significance of the responsibility may be more important than the number of tasks the employee performs.

Higher-level duties have become a normal part of the role

An employee may initially perform higher-level duties temporarily while covering another person. Over time, those responsibilities may become permanent.

If the higher duties are now regular and form a substantial part of the employee’s role, the employer should consider whether temporary higher duties payments remain appropriate or whether the employee’s substantive classification should be reviewed.

Higher duties and permanent reclassification are different

Higher duties usually arise when an employee temporarily performs work associated with a higher classification.

Permanent reclassification is more appropriate when the employee’s ongoing role has changed and the higher-level responsibilities are no longer temporary.

The relevant modern award must be checked because higher duties provisions vary. For example, one award may require the higher rate after more than one day, while another may use a different qualifying period.

Employers should not apply a higher duties rule from one award to employees covered by another.

What if the employee performs duties from several levels?

Many roles do not fit neatly within one classification description.

An employee may perform routine administrative work, provide technical advice and occasionally coordinate others. The employer needs to assess the role as a whole.

Consider:

• The main purpose of the role
• Which duties are performed regularly
• How much time is spent on higher-level work
• The significance of the higher-level responsibilities
• Whether those responsibilities are temporary
• The level of judgement normally required
• The classification principles within the award
• Any specific higher duties provision

Avoid classifying the role by simply counting the number of tasks appearing under each award level.

One responsibility involving substantial accountability may be more significant than several routine tasks. Conversely, occasionally helping with a higher-level task may not mean the employee’s entire role has changed.

Experience alone may not justify a higher classification

A long-serving employee may perform their work more efficiently and require less supervision than a new employee. This does not always mean the role itself belongs at a higher classification.

Employers should distinguish between:

• The employee becoming more experienced within the same role
• The role requiring a higher level of skill, responsibility or judgement

Some awards include pay points or progression arrangements within the same classification level. An employee may move to a higher pay point based on experience, competency or length of service without moving to a higher classification.

Pay point progression and classification movement are not the same.

Internal promotion does not replace the award assessment

An employee may receive a promotion under the organisation’s internal structure, but the business should still confirm how the new role aligns with the relevant modern award.

Internal grades are often designed around:

• Market salary ranges
• Organisational hierarchy
• Career progression
• Job size
• Remuneration policy

Award classifications establish legal minimum pay and conditions.

An employee can therefore hold an internal grade and an award classification at the same time. The two structures do not need to use identical level names, but the employee’s pay must meet the minimum requirements of the award classification applying to their work.

How to review whether reclassification is required

A practical review should bring together evidence from several sources.

Review the actual duties

Compare the employee’s current work with the responsibilities they performed when the original classification was selected.

Focus on regular duties rather than isolated tasks.

Speak with the manager

Ask the manager to explain:

• What decisions the employee makes
• Which issues they resolve independently
• Whether they direct other employees
• What outcomes they are accountable for
• How the role differs from lower and higher-level roles
• When the responsibilities changed

Update the position description

The position description should reflect the employee’s current duties, decision-making authority and reporting relationships.

Avoid rewriting the position description simply to support a preferred classification. It should describe the role objectively.

Compare the relevant classification levels

Compare the role with the current classification and the levels immediately above and below it.

Document which characteristics align with each level and why the selected classification provides the best overall fit.

Check similar roles

Review employees performing comparable work across teams, locations and business units.

Differences may be justified, but they should be explainable through duties, responsibility, experience provisions or working arrangements.

Record the decision

Maintain a classification record showing:

• The applicable award
• The selected classification
• The evidence reviewed
• The reasons for the decision
• The effective date
• The approving person
• The next review date

This creates a clear audit trail if the classification is questioned later.

What happens if an employee should have been reclassified earlier?

If the review determines that the employee has been performing higher-classification work for some time, the employer should consider whether a historical underpayment has occurred.

The review may need to identify:

• When the duties changed
• The correct historical classification rates
• Ordinary hours worked
• Overtime and penalty payments
• Casual loading
• Allowances
• Leave payments
• Annual leave loading
• Superannuation impacts

A classification difference can affect more than base pay. If overtime and penalty rates were calculated using the wrong classification rate, those payments may also need correction.

The employer should also examine whether other employees performing similar work are affected.

How often should classifications be reviewed?

Classifications should be reviewed whenever there is a material change to a role.

Useful review triggers include:

• Promotion
• Restructure
• New supervisory responsibilities
• Introduction of new technology
• Expansion of decision-making authority
• Changes to qualifications or licence requirements
• Extended higher duties
• Transfer to another business unit
• Significant changes to a position description
• Employee or manager concerns
• Changes to an award classification structure

An annual classification review can also help identify gradual role changes that were not captured through a formal promotion process.

Questions for managers to consider

Managers can use the following questions when a role changes:

• What does the employee do now that they did not do previously?
• Are the new duties temporary or ongoing?
• Has the complexity of the work increased?
• Does the employee exercise more independent judgement?
• Are they supervising, training or coordinating others?
• Has their accountability for outcomes increased?
• Does the role require additional technical knowledge?
• Which award classification best reflects the role as a whole?
• Does a higher duties provision apply?
• When did the change occur?
• Has payroll been informed?

These questions create a more reliable discussion than asking only whether the employee deserves a promotion.

Common classification mistakes

Employers should avoid:

• Relying only on job titles
• Assuming a higher salary makes classification irrelevant
• Copying the classification used for a previous employee
• Treating increased workload as automatic evidence of higher-level work
• Ignoring informal supervisory responsibilities
• Leaving employees on temporary higher duties indefinitely
• Confusing pay point progression with reclassification
• Reviewing the position description without checking actual duties
• Updating base pay without checking related entitlements
• Reclassifying one employee without reviewing comparable roles

Classification reviews should follow the work

An employee should move to a higher award classification when their ongoing role aligns more closely with the higher level under the applicable award.

The decision should be supported by evidence about the employee’s duties, responsibility, skill, supervision and judgement. It should not depend only on tenure, job title or whether the employer considers the employee high performing.

A consistent classification process helps employers maintain compliant pay arrangements while giving employees a clearer understanding of how their roles are assessed.

Remunera supports Australian employers with modern award coverage reviews, employee classification assessments, current pay comparisons and remuneration cost modelling. Our approach considers how the role operates in practice and provides a documented basis for each classification decision.

Learn more about Remunera’s Modern Award Compliance and Employee Classification Review.

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Award coverage, classification and higher duties requirements depend on the applicable award and the circumstances of each employment arrangement.

The Fair Work Ombudsman confirms that award classifications commonly consider duties, supervision, experience and qualifications, and that the employee’s classification determines their minimum pay rate.

Official sources

• Fair Work Ombudsman: award classifications