On 2 September 2025, SafeWork NSW issued a prohibition notice to the University of Technology Sydney ordering it to cancel meetings with approximately 800 staff and halt the release of an academic change proposal that could have resulted in up to 150 job losses. SafeWork found that workers were, and would be, exposed to "a serious and imminent risk of psychological harm" from actions taken and planned.

The notice was lifted on 5 September after UTS engaged with SafeWork and agreed to adjust the timing and nature of its communications with staff. But the fact that a prohibition notice was issued at all is the development that matters. This is believed to be the first time a safety regulator has used a prohibition notice to halt a workplace redundancy process in New South Wales, and the first such notice issued for a white-collar workforce.

What triggered the notice

UTS had been discussing cost reductions with staff since late 2024, as part of a reported $100 million cost-reduction programme. SafeWork had been investigating the university since mid-2025 following an anonymous complaint alleging that the restructure posed psychosocial risks to staff and that there was inadequate consultation.

The prohibition notice identified specific deficiencies in how UTS was managing the psychosocial risks of the change process. The meetings with 800 staff had been scheduled with approximately one day's notice. SafeWork described the meeting invitations as using "finalistic" language that had distressed workers. The university had promised additional supports for staff but had not explained how to access them. UTS had been consulting on a draft psychosocial risk assessment relating to the change proposal but had scheduled the meetings before considering the feedback from that consultation.

The notice carried a fine of $663,080 for non-compliance and remained in effect until SafeWork was satisfied that appropriate safety measures had been put in place as a result of consultation with workers.

How it was resolved

UTS Vice-Chancellor Professor Andrew Parfitt told a Senate inquiry that the university engaged with a SafeWork inspector on Friday 5 September and adjusted the timing and nature of its communication of the change proposal. The changes related to how information would be provided to staff, particularly those potentially impacted by the proposals. UTS Chief Operating Officer Glen Babington confirmed they met with worker representatives and refined their approach to ensure staff received fair warning before change proposals affecting them were presented.

The notice was lifted. UTS described management of psychosocial risks and staff wellbeing as "of paramount importance." The university also expressed frustration at the delays in releasing its change proposal and concern about the impact the protracted process was having on staff.

Why this matters beyond UTS

Prohibition notices have historically been used to halt activities posing a serious and imminent risk to workers' physical health and safety. The UTS notice applies the same instrument to psychosocial risk arising from an organisational change process.

Poor organisational change management is an identified psychosocial hazard in every Australian code of practice on managing psychosocial hazards at work. The UTS case demonstrates that a regulator will enforce against this hazard using the same powers it applies to physical safety risks. The prohibition notice did not challenge UTS's right to restructure. It challenged the way the restructure was being managed.

The specific deficiencies are instructive. Meetings scheduled with inadequate notice. Language that created distress rather than enabling consultation. A psychosocial risk assessment that was still being consulted on when the change process was scheduled to proceed. Support services promised but not operationalised. These are process failures, not policy failures. UTS was evidently aware that psychosocial risks existed. The issue was that the controls were not in place before the activity commenced.

Employment lawyer Julian Arndt of Australian Business Lawyers and Advisors described the notice as "a warning to employers", noting that the publicity around the issue will affect how employers approach change processes regardless of how frequently prohibition notices are issued.

The practical lesson

Every organisation that conducts restructures, redundancies, or significant change programmes now needs to treat the change process itself as a psychosocial hazard requiring documented risk controls. This means conducting a psychosocial risk assessment before the change is announced, not concurrently. It means consulting with workers and health and safety representatives on the risk assessment and implementing controls before meetings are scheduled. It means giving workers adequate notice, using language that is factual rather than alarming, and ensuring support services are accessible and explained before communications are issued.

The UTS prohibition notice was lifted within days. But the precedent was set. Organisational change management is a regulated psychosocial hazard, and regulators will intervene when the controls are not in place.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on psychosocial compliance in Australian workplaces. It does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. Information cited is sourced from SafeWork NSW, Allens, Pinsent Masons, Astrid Legal, Times Higher Education, HRD Australia, and HR Leader as of the date of publication.