Bristow v Sonny's Restaurant & Bar Pty Ltd

The applicant, Bristow, brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against Sonny's Restaurant & Bar Pty Ltd (the First Respondent) and four other respondents, alleging various contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act) and an applicable award. The applicant sought declarations that the First Respondent had contravened provisions relating to the issuance of a Fair Work Information Statement, payment in lieu of notice, provision of award and National Employment Standards access, directing work outside competence, minimum wage rates, payment timing, superannuation contributions, roster preparation, leave loading, full payment for work performed, dismissal due to complaints, record-keeping, and pay slip provision. The applicant also sought declarations that the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Respondents were involved in these contraventions.

The court was required to determine whether the First Respondent had contravened the specified sections of the FW Act and the award, and whether the other respondents were involved in these contraventions. The applicant's claims encompassed a broad range of alleged breaches of employment law, including failures to provide statutory entitlements, adhere to award conditions, and maintain proper employment records. The court also had to consider the application of section 550(2) of the FW Act concerning the alleged involvement of the other respondents.

Egan J found that the First Respondent had contravened sections 44(1), 45, 323(1)(a), 340(1)(a)(ii), 535(1), 535(2), 536(1), and 536(2) of the FW Act, as well as various clauses of the applicable award. The court determined that the First Respondent had failed to issue a Fair Work Information Statement, pay in lieu of notice, provide access to the award and National Employment Standards, pay minimum rates for 'Handyperson' work, pay at the higher 'Handyperson' rate, make superannuation contributions, pay an additional leave loading, pay the applicant in full for work performed, and make and keep employee records and provide pay slips in the prescribed form. The court also found that the First Respondent had dismissed the applicant because she made complaints or inquiries in relation to her employment. However, the court found that the First Respondent had not contravened section 45 by directing the applicant to work outside her competence, nor by prohibiting payment on a Friday, nor by failing to prepare and display rosters. The court also found that the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Respondents were not involved in the contraventions.

The court ordered that the First Respondent pay pecuniary penalties to the Commonwealth for the contraventions found. The specific amount of the penalties was to be determined at a later hearing. The application against the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Respondents was dismissed.