Darlaston v Risetop Construction Pty Ltd

Case [2011] FMCA 220

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DARLASTON v RISETOP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD & ORS [2011] FMCA 220
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Civil penalty proceedings – where a contravention of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) was admitted by each respondent – factors for consideration.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.728, 900, 904
Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560; [2008] FCAFC 8
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 94 IR 231; [1999] FCA 1714
CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Limited (2001) 108 IR 228; [2001] FCA 1364
Fair Work Ombudsman v Land Choice Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] FMCA 1255
Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14; [2007] FCA 1080
Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7
Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383; [2008] FCAFC 70
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd and Others (2007) 158 FCR 543; [2007] FCAFC 65
Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550
Applicant: PETER DARLASTON
First Respondent: RISETOP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 099 767 512)
Second Respondent MIKA RUMMUKAINEN
Third Respondent RISTO RUMMUKAINEN
File Number: SYG1889 of 2010
Judgment of: Barnes FM
Hearing date: 7 February 2011
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 5 April 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Reitano
Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitors for the Respondents: K P O’Donnell & Associates

DECLARATIONS

  1. The first respondent contravened s.900(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) in relation to the employment of Peter Kosonen, Timothy Kamppi, Mauno Ylisalo, Barry McAuliffe and Wayne Minnis in that it represented that the contracts of employment under which they performed work were contracts for services.

  2. By operation of s.728(1) of the Workplace Relations Act the second respondent contravened s.900(1) of the Workplace Relations Act in that he was involved in the first respondent’s contravention in relation to the employment of Peter Kosonen, Timothy Kamppi, Mauno Ylisalo, Barry McAuliffe and Wayne Minnis.

  3. By operation of s.728(1) of the Workplace Relations Act the third respondent contravened s.900(1) of the Workplace Relations Act in that he was involved in the first respondent’s contravention in relation to the employment of Peter Kosonen, Timothy Kamppi, Mauno Ylisalo, Barry McAuliffe and Wayne Minnis.

ORDERS

  1. Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $10,000 be imposed on the first respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

  2. Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $2,000 be imposed on the second respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

  3. Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $2,000 be imposed on the third respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

  4. The penalties be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia. 

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG1889 of 2010

PETER DARLASTON

Applicant

And

RISETOP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
(ACN…

Continue reading Darlaston v Risetop Construction Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Darlaston v Risetop Construction Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 220
Case
[2011] FMCA 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Darlaston, an employee, filed a complaint against Risetop Construction Pty Ltd and two of its directors, alleging violations of workplace laws. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary concern was the alleged contravention of section 900(1) of the Workplace Relations Act. The crux of the dispute was whether the respondents had failed to comply with specific provisions of the Act, which mandates certain protections and entitlements for employees.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had indeed contravened section 900(1) of the Workplace Relations Act by not adhering to the stipulated requirements. This involved a detailed examination of the evidence provided and the legal standards applicable to the case. The court had to assess whether the actions of the respondents amounted to a breach of the Act and, if so, the extent of the contravention.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act and the circumstances of the case. It found that each of the respondents had contravened section 900(1) of the Act. Consequently, the court imposed penalties on each respondent, varying in amount based on the severity of the contravention. The court concluded that the penalties should be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia as per the statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court mandated the imposition of penalties on the respondents. Specifically, the first respondent was to pay a penalty of $10,000, while the second and third respondents were each required to pay a penalty of $2,000. These penalties were to be remitted to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $10,000 be imposed on the first respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

2.

Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $2,000 be imposed on the second respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

3.

Pursuant to s.904(1) of the Workplace Relations Act a penalty of $2,000 be imposed on the third respondent in respect of the contravention of s.900(1) of the Act.

4.

The penalties be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.