Resources: Blog

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

Blog
|

Losing on penalties

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.

Similar articles

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.

Read more...

Webinar: What You Need to Know: The Rise of Adverse Action and Unfair Dismissal Claims

2020 continues to deliver unprecedented challenges to employers as they manage the economic and workplace culture impact of COVID-19. Difficult, but necessary, decisions taken in relation to workforce numbers together with increased poor employee behaviour has seen a dramatic rise in the number of unfair dismissal and adverse action claims.

Read more...

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Read more...

Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.

Read more...

Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

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.