Resources: Blogs

High stakes


Meat processer ordered to pay union $93,000 in penalties

This blog is a timely reminder of the importance of correctly managing overtime hours and payments to avoid serious financial penalties.

In A bone to pick: Assessing the “reasonableness” of additional hours we reported on the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) decision in Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Dick Stone Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 512 which found that a meat processing establishment had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) by:

  1. requiring the employee to work an additional 12 hours per week in excess of the maximum weekly hours of work;  
  2. failing to provide the employee with a copy of the Fair Work Information Statement (FWIS) before or as soon as practicable after the commencement of employment;
  3. underpaying the employee overtime for hours worked in excess of 38 hours per week and outside of the span of hours in the Meat Industry Award 2010 (the Award);
  4. failing to make copies of the Award and the National Employment Standards available to employees as required by the Award; and
  5. failing to post the roster with the start and finishing times of ordinary hours.

In Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Dick Stone Pty Ltd (No 2)[2022] FCA 1263 the Court was required to determine the pecuniary penalties to be imposed on the employer for the contraventions.

The Court had regard to the nature of the contraventions and the particular circumstances of the matter including that:

  • the employee was an immigrant worker who was employed shortly after his arrival into Australia and had little input into his terms and conditions of employment;
  • the letter of offer had deficiencies, including stating that the ordinary hours of work were 50 hours per week and failing to state a rate of pay or refer to when overtime was to be paid;
  • the contraventions occurred over more than three years;
  • the contraventions were deliberate and involved senior management;
  • the employer had not previously contravened the FW Act and did not have a history of breaches of workplace relations laws; and  
  • there was a need for specific and general deterrence.

While the employer’s apology was accepted, the Court did not place much weight in the “bare apology”. The Court considered that the employer had sought to deflect responsibility and had not appreciated the Court’s finding that requiring the employee to work an additional 12 hours per week was unreasonable and the reasons why it was unreasonable. In particular, when canvassing employees about working a 50-hour week, the employer had no regard to the finding that the additional hours were a risk to health and safety.  

Further, the Court noted that while the employee’s underpayment had since been rectified, there was no evidence that the employer had conducted any assessment of whether other employees were also underpaid. For the Court, this was an expected course of action had there been genuine contrition and acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the employer.

Accordingly, the Court imposed penalties totalling $93,000 and ordered the total penalty to be paid to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union.

Lessons for employers

As the Court noted in this matter, generally, breaches of the NES and modern awards are treated seriously because the NES and modern awards aim to protect minimum entitlements. For requiring the employee to work an unreasonable additional 12 hours per week and failing to pay overtime, the employer was ordered to pay a total penalty of $50,000.

Employers also face significant penalties in breaching basic obligations under the NES and/or a modern award. For example, in this matter, the employer was penalised $3,000 for failing to provide a copy of the FWIS to the employee as required by the NES, $25,000 for not ensuring that copies of the Award or the NES were made readily accessible to all employees and $15,000 for failing to post at the workplace a roster of start and finish times for ordinary hours as required by the Award.  

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

Dispute about “ordinary time earnings” settled by Full Federal Court

Out of the ordinary

In a timely reminder about the importance of carefully drafting enterprise agreements, the Federal Court of Australia – Full Court has recently determined a dispute about the definition of “ordinary time earnings” in a particular enterprise agreement. In doing so, the Full Court confirmed that departures from the plain text of an enterprise agreement will not be justified (unless there is an absurdity or a very seriously anomalous result).


HR Manager fined $7,600 for accessorial liability in adverse action against employee

Taking it personally

Last year, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found a HR Manager to be accessorily liable for his involvement in an employer’s unlawful adverse action against an employee after she proposed to exercise a workplace right, being her ability to initiate proceedings under a workplace law.


Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


Commission finds inappropriate social media use formed valid reason for dismissal

Message delivered

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission has confirmed that an employee’s inappropriate use of social media group chats may form a valid reason for dismissal, particularly when matters relating to work are discussed.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


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.

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