Resources: Blog

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


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

WHS rights and adverse action

A slippery slope

Under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee (such as dismissing them from employment) because they have a workplace right or because they have exercised or chosen not to exercise that right.


Employee dismissed for exercising workplace right to take leave

Diamonds are not a girl’s best friend

The general protections provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) provide protections against adverse action which is taken for a prohibited reason. Prohibited reasons for taking adverse action include situations where a person has a workplace right and exercises (or proposes to exercise) that right. Workplace rights include the right to utilise leave entitlements under the FW Act.


Court finds multiple breaches of general protections provisions

Direction needed

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Court) recently ruled on an application brought by an employee alleging that three respondents had engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), including sham contracting and dismissing the employee because she was pregnant.


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.


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.


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.


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.