Article By Adam Bowles, Country Director for Australia at OneAdvanced
Australian manufacturers are being asked to become more productive, more resilient and more competitive, often at the same time. It is therefore understandable that many are investing in automation, robotics, AI, sensors and smart factory technologies to improve production output and reduce waste.
Yet one of the biggest productivity opportunities in manufacturing is often being overlooked. Before automating the production line, manufacturers should modernise the systems used to manage the workforce.
The sequencing matters. In many manufacturing businesses, advanced production equipment sits alongside manual workforce processes. Rosters are built in spreadsheets. Timesheets are completed on paper. Leave requests are handled by email. Supervisors manually key in attendance data. Payroll teams then have to reconcile hours, overtime, allowances, shift penalties and leave balances across multiple sources of truth.
This creates a fragile operating model. Manufacturers may have invested in a smarter factory floor, but the people systems behind it remain manual, disconnected and prone to error.
The risk is especially acute in Australia, where manufacturers are already operating in a constrained labour market. Ai Group’s Australian Industry Outlook 2025 found that 71 per cent of industry leaders expected workforce shortages to affect their businesses, with shortages across both lower and higher-skilled roles affecting productivity, growth and financial performance. Ai Group has also warned that shortages of higher-skilled workers are a particular challenge for manufacturing, noting that technicians and tradespeople represent 28 per cent of the manufacturing workforce, compared with 12 per cent across the economy as a whole.
In that context, workforce management is not an administrative issue. It is an operational performance issue.
A manufacturer cannot optimise production if it does not have accurate, real-time visibility of who is available, who is qualified, who is fatigued, who is on leave and whether labour is being deployed in line with demand. Automation can increase production capacity, but it cannot fix a roster built on outdated information. It cannot prevent avoidable overtime if managers cannot see labour costs before shifts are approved. It cannot ensure the right skills are available at the right workstation if training, certification, and availability data are stored in separate systems.
This is the sequencing mistake costing manufacturers time and money. They modernise the machines before modernising the workforce processes that allow those machines to run efficiently.
Manual systems increase compliance risk
Australian manufacturers operate within complex workplace laws, including the Fair Work Act, National Employment Standards, modern awards, enterprise agreements, workplace health and safety duties and payroll record-keeping obligations. The Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award covers many manufacturing employers and employees, including engineering and manufacturing tradespersons, labourers, factory hands, laboratory technicians, testers and many associated roles.
Managing these obligations manually is becoming increasingly difficult. The Fair Work Ombudsman requires employers to keep accurate employment records, and Fair Work Inspectors can ask for time and wage records to assess whether employees have been paid correctly. If records are not made or kept, or are incorrect, employers can face infringement notices or court action.
The consequences are not theoretical. In 2020, the Fair Work Ombudsman secured $60,000 in penalties against Lindsay F Nelson Manufacturing, trading as Nelson Silos, for underpaying workers and failing to produce employment records. The matter involved underpayments to a casual driver and a full-time turner and fitter, including issues with overtime and accrued annual leave.
This case highlights a broader lesson. Payroll compliance failures are often not caused by one dramatic event. They emerge from fragmented systems, poor visibility, inconsistent interpretation of awards and manual workarounds that become embedded over time.
The legal environment is also tightening. Since 1 January 2025, intentional underpayment of wages or entitlements can be a criminal offence under Australian workplace law.  From 1 July 2026, the maximum penalty amounts for certain contraventions of the Fair Work Act will increase, with the maximum fine being $8.25 million.
Work hours and fatigue
Manufacturers also need to consider work hours and fatigue. Under the National Employment Standards, full-time employees generally must not be required to work more than 38 hours a week unless additional hours are reasonable. Factors include health and safety risks, personal circumstances, notice, overtime or penalty compensation and the needs of the business.
Safe Work Australia has also released a model Code of Practice on managing fatigue risk, noting that fatigue can affect a person’s ability to function safely and that controls may include changes to work hours, shift design and breaks between periods of work.
A single view of the workforceÂ
This is where modern workforce management systems become a strategic investment. Digital rostering, time and attendance, leave management, skills tracking and payroll integration give manufacturers a single view of workforce availability, labour cost and compliance risk. They reduce manual data entry, improve audit trails and help managers make better decisions before problems reach payroll, production or the shop floor.
As factories become more advanced, workforce requirements become more specialised. The manufacturers that will gain the most from automation are those that treat workforce management as part of the same transformation journey. For Australian manufacturers, the message is clear. Before automating production, modernise workforce management. The production line may be where output is measured, but workforce systems are where productivity, compliance and resilience often begin.
