Resources: Blogs

Dressing Down

Blogs
|

Celebrity Fashion and Wedding Dress Designer forced into liquidation due to unpaid employee entitlements

It has recently been reported that celebrity fashion designer, Johanna Johnson who has designed gowns for Madonna and Christina Hendricks is being pursued in court by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and former employees for more than $1 million. The amount includes at least $300,000 in owed superannuation that had not been paid to employees for many years.

It has recently been reported that celebrity fashion designer, Johanna Johnson who has designed gowns for Madonna and Christina Hendricks is being pursued in court by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and former employees for more than $1 million. The amount includes at least $300,000 in owed superannuation that had not been paid to employees for many years.

The situation of Johanna Johnson’s business serves as a reminder to employers that they have superannuation obligations to various kinds of workers. The general rule is that if you pay an employee $450 or more before tax in a calendar month, an employer is required to pay superannuation in addition to the employee’s wages. The minimum an employer must pay is called the Super Guarantee (SG).

The SG is currently 9.5% of an employee’s ordinary time earnings. Employers must pay the SG at least four times per year, by the quarterly due dates.

If an employer fails to pay the SG into the correct fund by the due date, the employer may have to pay the SG charge. The SG charge is made up of the SG shortfalls amounts, interest on the amounts owing and the administration fee.

However, employees may not be the only workers entitled to superannuation. In On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency Pty Ltd v CoT (No 3) [2011] FCA 366 the Federal Court determined that contractors may be entitled to superannuation – in particular, in circumstances where a contract is considered to be wholly or principally for the labour of the person engaged and the following characteristics are met:

  • The individual is remunerated (either wholly or principally) for their personal labour;
  • The individual must perform the work personally (there is no right of delegation); and
  • The individual is not paid to achieve a result.

Therefore, employers must seriously consider reviewing all arrangements with employees and contractors to ensure they are paying superannuation to those who are entitled to, otherwise there is not only the risk of paying back the workers with interest their owed superannuation entitlements, but the possibility that the ATO can take the business to court for breach of superannuation guarantee legislation.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

ICYMI: FWO’s Payroll Remediation Program guide

Employers have obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to pay employees their minimum entitlements for work performed.

Read more...

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more...

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Mad Mex franchisee to pay $305,000 in damages for sexual harassment claim

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects employees from sexual harassment, and as part of the Respect@Work amendments now prohibits sex-based harassment.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required