Resources: Blog

The accessorial liability provisions of the FW Act


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

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.


Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.


Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.


The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.


Casual Terms Award Review 2021


In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).


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.