$200,000 penalty imposed for adverse action taken against employees underpaid because of their race

Losing on penalties

June 15, 2018

Fair Work Ombudsman’s (FWO’s) successful prosecution of a hotel operator and its owner who took adverse action against two employees because of their Chinese race and Malaysian extraction.

Last year in The INNS and outs of adverse action: FWO prosecutes hotel owner for underpaying employees because of race. we reported on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s (FWO’s) successful prosecution of a hotel operator and its owner who took adverse action against two employees because of their Chinese race and Malaysian extraction.

Yenida Pty Ltd operated the Scamander Beach Hotel where a husband and wife were employed as the head chef and kitchen hand respectively.

The Federal Court of Australia held that the hotel operator and owner took adverse action against the couple when treated them differently to other employees by:

paying them a set salary or fixed rate of pay;

requiring them to work six days per week; and

not paying award entitlements.

The Court held that this adverse action was the result of discrimination based on the couple’s Chinese race and Malaysian extraction.

The couple were collectively underpaid a total of $29,326.19. In addition, 15 other casual hotel employees were underpaid over $26,000.00.

In May 2018, the Court issued its penalty decision in relation to this matter (Fair Work Ombudsman v Yenida Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] FCCA 1342). The Court ordered the employer to pay a penalty of $176,005 for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). A separate penalty of $35,099 was ordered against the hotel owner for his involvement in the contraventions.

In imposing the penalties, the Court took into account that the conduct was objectively serious in that the employees were vulnerable and exploited as they had little understanding of Australia’s workplace laws and were dependent on employment in order to remain in Australia.

The Court also accepted that there was a need for specific deterrence as the hotel owner had moved on to managing another motel and that there was also a need for general deterrence for the accommodation and food industry.

The successful prosecution by the FWO in this case and the penalty imposed by the Court indicates that the exploitation of vulnerable workers, including by underpaying wages, will be considered seriously by the Courts. This case is also a further reminder to employers to pay all employees their minimum entitlements, regardless of visa status.

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.

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.

June 30, 2025

News Alerts

Employer ordered to pay damages for unlawful discrimination of employee with breastfeeding responsibilities

Let’s assess the damage

In October 2023, we reported on a decision of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal that found an employer had unlawfully discriminated against an employee because of her breastfeeding responsibilities. The Tribunal has now handed down its decision in relation to the remedies flowing from that contravention.

March 3, 2025

Blogs

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

October 22, 2024

Unpaid parental leave entitlements and paid parental leave pay

My baby just cares for me

Employers should be aware of the amendments made to unpaid parental leave entitlements and the financial support provided by the Commonwealth Government, both of which provide parents with greater flexibility in taking leave.

July 28, 2026

Blogs

FWC confirms that employers are not required to discern employee’s capacity to work

No crystal ball required

When managing employees with medical conditions, employers are not expected to discern an employee’s capacity to work or identify appropriate workplace adjustments. Instead, decisions should be made based on the medical evidence available to the employer at that time.

July 22, 2026

Blogs

FWC rejects WFH request for employee with primary caring responsibilities

Caring is sharing

In a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission, an employer has had its reasons for refusing a flexible working arrangement request upheld on the basis that the employee’s primary caring responsibilities created a risk to the accurate and efficient performance of his duties.

July 22, 2026

Resources: Blogs

Losing on penalties