Ertekin v Euro Natural Stone Pty Ltd

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Manousaridis considered an application for default judgment brought by Mr Ertekin against Euro Natural Stone Pty Ltd (the first respondent) and a second respondent. The dispute arose from Mr Ertekin's employment with the first respondent, alleging contraventions of various provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act), including unlawful termination, failure to pay salary, and improper acceptance of resignation. The respondents failed to file a defence despite multiple court orders, leading to the application for default judgment.

The court was required to determine whether the statement of claim, on its face, established Mr Ertekin's entitlement to declaratory relief and other orders, including pecuniary penalties. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the first respondent contravened sections 340(1), 323(1), and 44(1) of the FW Act, and whether the second respondent was involved in these contraventions pursuant to section 550(2) of the FW Act. The court also considered the appropriate quantum of pecuniary penalties and the award of judgment sums.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that the respondents were in default and had not satisfied Mr Ertekin's claims. The court found that the first respondent contravened section 340(1) by purporting to accept Mr Ertekin's resignation when he had not resigned, contravened section 323(1) by failing to pay salary for work performed, and contravened section 44(1) by failing to pay accrued annual leave and by purporting to dismiss Mr Ertekin without providing the requisite notice or payment in lieu. The court also found the second respondent involved in these contraventions. Applying the principles for pecuniary penalties under section 546 of the FW Act, and considering the maximum penalty units applicable, the court imposed penalties on both respondents.

Consequently, the court made declarations that the first respondent had contravened sections 340(1), 323(1), and 44(1) of the FW Act, and that the second respondent was involved in these contraventions. The court ordered the first respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $69,300 and the second respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $16,380. Further, judgment was entered against the first respondent for $77,160.82 and against the second respondent for $62,426.91, with a note that Mr Ertekin could not recover more than $77,160.82 in aggregate from both respondents. Interest was also awarded on the judgment sums.