Governance Excellence Series · Article 91

Employment Contracts: A Signature Doesn't Make an Unlawful Term Lawful

Every discipline this quarter covered rests on this one document. Most associations reuse it without review

People, Culture & Employment Governance · 25 May 2027

Every discipline this quarter has covered, CEO performance, remuneration, psychosocial safety, redundancy, secondment, professional development, ultimately rests on one foundational document most associations reuse without review: the employment contract itself. A single, critical principle deserves to sit at the centre of how a board thinks about these documents, and it is one many employers miss.

A Signature Does Not Make An Unlawful Term Lawful

A contract term providing less than the National Employment Standards or the applicable modern award is simply unenforceable to the extent of that shortfall, even where the employee signed and agreed to it. This is a specific, frequently misunderstood point. An association cannot negotiate its way out of minimum entitlements through mutual agreement, and a signed document containing such a term does not protect the organisation from an employee later claiming the actual legal entitlement, potentially including back pay for the shortfall.

The Specific, Common Trap Worth Naming Precisely

A particularly common and specific version of this problem is the broad salary set-off clause, language stating that an all-inclusive salary covers all award entitlements without specifying which entitlements are being set off against it. This kind of clause is frequently unenforceable specifically because it is too vague to demonstrate the employee is no worse off than the award requires. A generous-looking salary package can still fail legally if the set-off wording itself does not do the specific work the employer assumed it was doing. A contract treated as a formality signed once at the start of employment and never revisited is precisely the document most likely to be quietly wrong by the time it actually matters, when the relationship changes, ends, or is tested by a dispute.

Why A Reused Template Is A Genuine Risk, Not Just An Efficiency

Associations that grow and hire quickly frequently reuse the same contract template across different roles without proper review, a junior administrative position, a specialist professional role, and a senior manager should not automatically share identical terms, given how differently award coverage, incentive structures, confidentiality needs, and restraint provisions apply to each. Employment law itself also continues to evolve, casual conversion obligations and fixed-term contract limits have both seen recent reform, and a template drafted before these changes may no longer be fully compliant regardless of how well it served the organisation previously.

This closes the people, culture, and employment governance quarter this series has worked through in detail, CEO review, remuneration, psychosocial safety, bargaining, volunteers, diversity, board culture, whistleblower trust, performance management, redundancy, secondment, and professional development. Every one of these disciplines ultimately depends on the foundational employment relationship being built on sound, current, and specific contractual terms, not a template reused because it has always been the one on file.

This is one of the practical governance topics built into our Board Director course — alongside the papers, tools and frameworks that turn the principle into your board's actual practice. Explore the course →

— Annie

← Back to the Governance Excellence Series