Annualised wages for mortgage support: test the workload periods

Before offering an annualised wage to a mortgage processor, test the proposed arrangement against the periods in which work happens. Two workload patterns can contain the same total overtime hours while producing different outer-limit exceptions. An annual staffing budget cannot show that difference on its own.

This fictional exercise is for an Australian brokerage considering a directly employed, onshore, full-time support role. It prepares questions for the employer's employment adviser and payroll owner. It does not choose an award, recommend a wage, draft a contract or calculate anyone's pay.

Identify the arrangement before testing the workload

Fair Work distinguishes an award-based annualised wage from a contractual salary offsetting arrangement. The applicable award sets the former's rules. Employers using contractual offsetting still need to pay employees in full for each required pay period, at least monthly. Fair Work recommends independent advice before entering those arrangements.

Ask the employer's reviewer to identify which mechanism the proposal uses. “Annual salary” on a recruitment brief does not answer that question. If the proposal relies on contractual offsetting, obtain the appropriate separate assessment; do not borrow the example below as its payment test.

For this illustration, assume the employer's adviser has confirmed that the full-time role is covered by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award and that clause 17 is applicable. The employer is testing a proposed arrangement under that clause. Coverage and classification are inputs already resolved for the example, not conclusions readers should copy.

Clause 17 permits annualised wages for full-time employees and requires written records of the amount, covered provisions, calculation components and assumptions, and outer limits for overtime and ordinary hours attracting penalties. The exercise isolates one proposed overtime limit; it does not complete those other requirements.

Keep the same total hours and move the pressure

The brokerage expects the processor to prepare broker-approved packs, follow up assigned conditions and coordinate factual settlement updates. The broker retains the substantive decisions. The owner wants to know whether a proposed pay arrangement still needs a separate response when that support work becomes concentrated.

All hours below are invented. Assume payroll has correctly identified the illustrated additional hours as overtime. The proposed overtime outer limit is four hours, and the relevant outer-limit period is each individual fortnight shown. Four hours is an illustrative assumption, not a statutory allowance or a recommended limit. Other arrangements may use a different applicable pay period or roster cycle.

Two fictional workload patterns, each containing eight overtime hours

Pattern and period	Support-work pattern	Overtime hours	Assumed period limit	Hours beyond that limit
A: fortnight one	Additional pack preparation and condition tracking are spread across the period.	4	4	0
A: fortnight two	A similar preparation and follow-up workload continues.	4	4	0
B: fortnight one	The additional preparation queue is smaller.	2	4	0
B: fortnight two	Condition follow-up and settlement coordination concentrate in this period.	6	4	2

Pattern A totals four plus four: eight hours. Pattern B totals two plus six: also eight. Applying the stipulated limit separately to each fortnight gives no overtime outer-limit excess for A and two hours for B. Averaging B across the two fortnights would hide the exception the test is meant to reveal.

Under clause 17.1(c), hours exceeding either specified outer limit are outside the annualised wage and must be separately paid under the applicable award provisions. The two-hour result identifies a question for payroll to cost and administer before the offer is finalised; it is not a monetary calculation.

Pattern A is not labelled compliant or fully paid. The exercise has not assessed its wage amount, other entitlements, ordinary penalty-hour limit or annual comparison. Nor does either pattern establish that the employee can be required to work those hours. The task names alone do not determine overtime treatment.

Complete the review record for the concentrated pattern

Suppose the original hiring note says: “The salary budget covers eight extra hours across these two fortnights; no separate payroll process needed.” The completed test requires that note to change. Retain the same workload estimate, but remove the unsupported conclusion.

Completed proposal-review record for pattern B

Review item	Finding and next owner
Workload arithmetic	Complete: eight total overtime hours, with two beyond the second fortnight's assumed limit. The operations manager preserves both period rows.
Payment treatment and amount	Open: payroll must confirm applicable entitlements, rates and how a separate payment would be processed. No amount is approved by this worksheet.
Recording process	Open: the employer must establish usable time records and acknowledgement arrangements. A completed-file count does not supply working times.
Overall wage adequacy and review	Open: the responsible adviser and payroll owner must assess the full proposal and establish its required review process.
Recruitment wording	Corrected: the owner removes the claim that the annual budget resolves all additional-work payments. The offer remains subject to the actual employment review.

The manager supplies the proposed working pattern and the reason for each peak. Payroll supplies the payment analysis. The employment owner approves the arrangement and candidate-facing terms. Record a named person and response date for each unresolved item rather than assigning everything to “admin”.

No borrower documents are needed in this pack. Describe work as preparation, follow-up or coordination, with dates and working times where relevant. Keep the employment review separate from the client's loan record.

Do not close the annual review with an exception payment

Clause 17.2 requires a comparison each twelve months from commencement of the arrangement or on employment termination, with any shortfall paid within fourteen days. It also requires start, finish and unpaid-break records acknowledged as correct in writing by the employee each pay period or roster cycle.

In the example, resolving the second fortnight's exception would close that item only. It would not establish that the annual comparison was completed, that the underlying time records were acknowledged or that all other entitlements were covered. Give those items separate evidence and owners.

If this exercise exposes a concern about work already performed, take the actual records promptly to the employer's payroll and employment advisers. Do not wait for a future hire or an annual review to investigate an existing issue. Do not replace recorded hours with planned hours to make the comparison fit.

Bring the tested pattern into the hiring brief

Use the staff-cost worksheet for the broader budget after the employment inputs are confirmed. Keep a separate note of concentrated periods, the available broker reviewer and who handles additional coverage. More support hours do not create a broker approval window.

Use the team roster guide to identify working windows, reviewer overlap and accepted handovers. A workable roster and a payment assessment answer different questions; neither should be assumed from the other.

When you discuss your mortgage-support hiring brief, bring the actual duties and coverage pattern, along with employment questions still awaiting an answer. Confirm any specialist advisory service separately. The useful recruitment output is a realistic role and working arrangement, rather than an unsupported promise that one annual figure covers every peak.