This page has moved: standard employees explained

Under Schedule 1 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), the starting point for many employees is the weekly average of gross earnings received during the 12 months immediately before the accident.

If you were earning continuously but had not been earning continuously for at least 12 months, the relevant period may be the period from when you started earning continuously to immediately before the accident. Other Schedule 1 pathways may apply where employment history is more complex.

Do not check only the base hourly rate. The worksheet should show how the insurer treated the gross earnings actually received in the relevant period, including:

• normal salary or wages;
• overtime: overtime worked in the relevant period, with rosters or payroll codes where available;
• allowances: shift, site, travel or other recurring payments that appear in the payroll records; and
• bonuses and commissions: performance-based payments actually received, where the records show how they relate to the relevant period.

Some fringe benefits, non-cash benefits or discretionary items may need separate analysis. Check the decision reasons rather than assuming every payment label is automatically included or excluded.

If you had gaps in employment or periods of unpaid leave in the pre-accident period, ask how the insurer treated those weeks and why. Some files require a different Schedule 1 pathway, but the answer depends on the reason for the gap, the records and the decision notice.

A single employer summary or a limited set of payslips may not answer every PAWE issue. If the worksheet does not show a bonus, overtime period, allowance or leave adjustment, compare the decision with the source records and the internal review pathway before the dispute chronology becomes messy.

Standard-employee PAWE disputes usually turn on detail rather than slogans. The practical question is what was actually paid, what period should be used, and how the insurer treated each payroll component.

• Complete payroll history: a full relevant-period record is usually stronger than a handful of payslips selected from a short period.
• Regular overtime pattern: Rosters, timesheets, and payroll codes can show that overtime was part of your normal earnings rather than a one-off spike.
• Allowance identification: Site, travel, meal, shift, and penalty components should be matched against payroll labels so they are not dismissed as unclear or discretionary.
• Leave-period explanation: Annual leave, unpaid leave, workers compensation leave, or parental leave can distort an average unless the insurer understands exactly what happened in those weeks.
• Multiple-source cross-checking: Payslips, bank statements, income statements and employer letters should line up so the reviewer can test the weekly rate without guessing.

Where the dispute is really about earnings evidence rather than work capacity, it often helps to keep the PAWE argument separate from any certificate or capacity issue and route the matter into the correct review pathway.

Some employee PAWE disputes turn on practical evidence gaps rather than a complex legal argument.

• Accepting a base-rate-only calculation: ask whether the worksheet has considered the payroll components actually received, not only ordinary hourly wages.
• Sending incomplete payroll evidence: A partial record may leave overtime or allowances looking irregular when fuller payroll records would explain the pattern.
• Mixing earnings and capacity submissions together: If the real dispute is the weekly rate, it helps to state that clearly instead of sending one broad complaint about everything going wrong with the claim.
• Ignoring a recent permanent change: if your hours, role or rate changed shortly before the accident, you may need the recent-employment-change rules rather than a blunt historical average.
• Letting the review chronology drift: Decision letters, calculation sheets, and correction requests should be kept together so the internal review or PIC path is ready if needed.

A strong employee PAWE file shows the reviewer exactly what is disputed, why it matters, and which documents answer the point.

Before challenging an employee PAWE decision, it helps to build one review-ready bundle rather than sending documents piecemeal.

• The insurer decision and any calculation worksheet.
• A chronology showing the relevant earnings period and any leave or roster changes.
• Payslips, payroll summaries, bank statements, and income statements in date order.
• Any employer confirmation about hours, overtime patterns, allowances, or role changes.
• A short written schedule identifying each missing or wrongly excluded earnings component.

That structure makes it easier to move from insurer review into the correct PIC stream if the weekly rate is still understated.

Before accepting an employee PAWE figure, check the calculation against the documents rather than only the final weekly amount.

• Period: does the insurer use the correct pre-accident earnings period for your employment history?
• Components: are wages, overtime, shift or site allowances, commissions, and bonuses visible in the schedule?
• Proof: do payslips, bank deposits, income statements, and employer records reconcile with each other?
• Distortions: are unpaid leave, roster changes, role changes, or missing payroll weeks explained?
• Pathway: if the insurer will not correct the figure, is the next step an internal review, merit review, or a different dispute path?