|
Skodel Newsletter · March 2026
SafeWork NSW halted a restructure. AI redundancies are accelerating.
A regulator stopped an organisational restructure on psychological harm grounds. With thousands of AI-driven redundancies now hitting Australia, here is what that precedent means.
|
|
|
Key Figures
|
4,450
Australian tech roles cut in the first 10 weeks of 2026, more than all of 2025
|
|
1 in 3
Australians projected to be affected by AI by 2030 (ACTU)
|
|
1st
Prohibition notice used to halt a white-collar restructure in NSW
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
The AI Redundancy Wave |
|
|
What is happening right now
Australia · Q1 2026
| 01 |
WiseTech Global announced 2,000 cuts in February, approximately 30% of its global workforce, as part of a two-year AI-driven restructure. |
| 02 |
Block cut more than 4,000 employees in February, nearly 40% of its workforce. CEO Jack Dorsey stated AI could automate much of the work those employees were doing. |
| 03 |
Atlassian announced 1,600 redundancies on 11 March, approximately 10% of its global workforce, framed as a shift toward AI-first operations. |
| 04 |
Sydney now ranks third globally for tech job losses in 2026, behind Seattle and San Francisco (RationalFX). |
Whether the driver is genuinely AI, cost pressure, or share price, the psychosocial risk to workers going through these processes is the same.
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
The Regulatory Reality |
|
|
The UTS Precedent
University of Technology Sydney · SafeWork NSW · September 2025
| 01 |
UTS was cutting 150 roles as part of a $100M cost reduction program. SafeWork investigated following an anonymous complaint alleging inadequate consultation and psychological harm. |
| 02 |
On 2 September, SafeWork issued a prohibition notice. Meetings with 800 staff scheduled for the next day were cancelled. The change proposal was blocked from release. |
| 03 |
SafeWork found meetings used "finalistic" language, were called with one day's notice, and the psychosocial risk assessment was running during the change process, not before it. |
| 04 |
The notice was lifted after UTS extended timelines and changed its communications approach. |
The cost. Estimated at $3-4 million per month while the halt was in place. The legislated penalty notice for non-compliance is $594K+, with court prosecution carrying higher exposure.
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
Key Questions |
|
|
Was the Atlassian, Block or WiseTech process different?
What we know, and what we don't
What appears different
| Atlassian CEO communicated directly to all staff by video before the process began and acknowledged the personal impact explicitly |
| WiseTech's cuts are phased over two years, allowing more time for planning and consultation than UTS's compressed timeline |
| These are private sector technology companies. Different union density, enterprise agreement structures, and regulatory scrutiny levels may apply |
What we don't know
| Were psychosocial risk assessments completed before these announcements, not after? |
| Atlassian employees were told to wait for an email confirming whether they still had a job. Is there a meaningful difference between that and UTS calling a meeting with one day's notice? |
| Workers who remain may face increased workloads, changed roles, and uncertainty about further rounds of cuts. Were controls put in place for that cohort too? |
| As AI-driven restructures spread into professional services, healthcare, and government, sectors with stronger union representation and higher regulatory scrutiny, will the UTS playbook be used more often? |
|
|
|
| Skodel Case Analysis |
Hazards & Risk Factors |
|
|
Psychosocial hazards at play
Identified in the UTS case under the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice
| 01 |
Poor Organisational Change Management
Inadequate notice · finalistic communication · no prior risk assessment
|
High
|
| 02 |
Job Demands
150 roles at risk · prolonged uncertainty · proposal withheld
|
High
|
| 03 |
Low Role Clarity
Scope of change not communicated · no clear timeline provided
|
Mod-High
|
| 04 |
Poor Organisational Justice
Staff concerns not meaningfully considered · consultation concurrent with decisions
|
Mod-High
|
|
|
|
| Skodel Cross-Industry Benchmark |
Control Effectiveness |
|
|
The Skodel Signal
Poor Organisational Change Management · Poor Organisational Justice
Communication from Leadership
Across Skodel's current Australian dataset, the figures below show the percentage of workers who disagree or strongly disagree with each statement:
| I receive timely and clear updates about organisational priorities |
22% disagree |
| I receive timely and clear updates from my manager |
19% disagree |
| I have opportunity to provide input during change |
24% disagree |
These are current figures from organisations actively using Skodel across Australia. Checking in with workers during a change process, not just before it, provides data on whether controls are effective and creates a record that consultation was substantive.
|
|
|
|
Assessing psychosocial risk during organisational change
Request a sample psychosocial risk report to see how Skodel works in practice.
Request a Sample Report →
|
|
|
| |
.png)
.png)
.png)