Resources: Blog

The accessorial liability provisions of the FW Act

Blog
|

Anyone can accessorise

Employees making claims against their employers are able to name individuals they believe to have been involved in the contraventions of the FW Act that make up their claim.

Findings of accessorial liability for contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) are now frequent occurrences. Most commonly, the individuals found to have been involved in contraventions of the FW Act are directors of companies, and those findings of personal liability result from prosecutions brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO).

However, employers and their managers should be aware that it is not only the FWO that is able to bring claims alleging accessorial liability for a FW Act breach under s550 of the FW Act.

Employees making claims against their employers are able to name individuals they believe to have been involved in the contraventions of the FW Act that make up their claim. Unions can also bring those claims on behalf of the employees they represent. It is not only directors or officers who can be named as alleged contraveners, but any person involved. That includes HR managers, team leaders and even third parties like payroll providers.

Recently, in the decision of MTCT Services Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union [2018] FCA 1648, the Federal Court of Australia granted the AWU, the AMWU and CEPU permission to amend their cross-claim in proceedings against MTCT Services Pty Ltd (MTCT) to allege that MTCT’s Industrial Relations Manager was involved in contraventions of the FW Act.

Those contraventions, it is claimed, result from MTCT failing to properly apply the transfer of business provisions in the FW Act to its employees and the industrial instruments that applied to their employment.

The unions claim that the IR Manager was involved in those contraventions of the FW Act.

This latest move by the unions forms part of a long-running dispute with MCTC (and its parent company UGL Operations and Maintenance Pty Ltd) concerning pay and conditions for contract maintenance workers at Esso Australia Pty Ltd’s Bass Strait facilities. It demonstrates that the accessorial liability provisions of the FW Act are not only utilised as enforcement methods by the regulator (the FWO) but can also be utilised by other parties pursuing claims under the FW Act.

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

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...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation June 2020

Cases and Legislation June 2020 NEWS ALERTS NSW Work Health Safety Legislation Amendments The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) was recently amended giving effect to some of the recommendations of the 2018 national review of the modern WHS Act. ...

Read more...

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation February 2020

Cases and Legislation February 2020 Post-Employment Conduct “Ex-employee fined for contempt after breaching Court undertakings" Maxilift Australia Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2020] SASC 8 Executive summary A former sales manager has been fined $7,115 and found in contempt of...

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.