Resources: Blog

Employer and director ordered to pay penalties for failure to comply with compliance notice

Blog
|

Compliance is a must

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) regularly engages in enforcement action for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Such enforcement action includes issuing infringement and compliance notices, entering into enforceable undertakings or commencing litigation against companies and others involved in contraventions.

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) regularly engages in enforcement action for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Such enforcement action includes issuing infringement and compliance notices, entering into enforceable undertakings or commencing litigation against companies and others involved in contraventions.

In the Fair Work Ombudsman and Registered Organisations Commission Entity Annual Report 2020-21 (the Annual Report), the FWO identified issuing compliance notices as its primary enforcement tool for underpayment matters.  Such was the FWO’s use of compliances notices that in the 2020-2021 period, 2,025 compliance notices were issued, compared to 952 in the 2019-2020 period.

Under section 716 of the FW Act, if a FWO inspector reasonably believes a contravention of workplace laws has occurred, a compliance notice can be issued. The person issued with the compliance notice must then take the action specified to remedy the contravention and produce evidence of their compliance. A failure to comply with a compliance notice is a civil remedy provision and the FWO can take court action to enforce it.

Recently in Fair Work Ombudsman v PEBS Group Pty Ltd [2021] FedCFamC2G 158, the FWO was successful in securing penalties against a business and its director for failing to comply with a compliance notice. PEBS Group operated as a business which sold advertising space in an online directory. It employed telemarketers and sales representatives whose duties included selling advertising spaces and managing accounts.

In September 2019, the FWO commenced an investigation into PEBS Group for breaches of the FW Act resulting in the underpayment of five employees. The FWO issued a compliance notice against PEBS Group for the contraventions of the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 and the annual leave and notice of termination provisions of the FW Act.

The compliance notice required PEBS Group to conduct an audit to calculate the amount of underpayment, rectify the underpayment and provide evidence to the FWO that it complied with the notice.

PEBS Group was required to comply with the compliance notice by 17 March 2020. However, it was not until 15 January 2021 (and after the FWO commenced litigation) that PEBS Group made payment to the five employees, and even then, there were still outstanding entitlements owing to one employee.

The FWO commenced litigation against PEBS Group for failing to comply with the compliance notice and also against the sole director of PEBS Group under section 550 of the FW Act for being involved in the contravention. The FWO sought declarations, orders for compliance and for penalties to be imposed for the non-compliance.  

PEBS Group and its director admitted that declarations and orders should be made however disputed the amount of the penalties to be imposed. The director submitted that a significant penalty would result in him being crippled financially.

In setting the penalties, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court) had regard to:

  • the deliberate failure to comply with the compliance notice, given that the director was aware of the compliance notice and its requirements;
  • the non-compliance with the compliance notice for a period of 10 months,
  • the opportunity given by the FWO to rectify the breach which was ignored, which in turn required the FWO to commence litigation; and
  • the need to set a penalty at a level for both specific and general deterrence.

Accordingly, the Court ordered PEBS Group to pay a penalty in amount of $15,120.00 while the director was ordered to pay a penalty of $3,024.00.

Lessons for employers

The FWO has a range of enforcement mechanisms available to monitor and ensure compliance with the FW Act. Compliance notices are an alternative to commencing litigation however such notices must nevertheless be complied with. A failure to take the action specified in a compliance notice may result in further enforcement activities, including legal proceedings for which penalties may be imposed.

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

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.

Read more...

Labour hire company and placement company penalised for discriminating against prospective employee

Age is just a number

The general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) are wide-ranging in the sense that they provide protections to, and prohibit adverse action by, persons and entities beyond an employee and an employer.

Read more...

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.