Fair Work Ombudsman v C & H Entertainment Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2021] FCCA 1216
•4 June 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fair Work Ombudsman v C and H Entertainment Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1216
[2021] FCCA 1216
4 June 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against C & H Entertainment Pty Ltd (the first respondent), and two individuals, the second and third respondents, alleging contraventions of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth). The dispute concerned the first respondent's failure to comply with a compliance notice, keep proper employee records, and provide payslips to an employee, Ms. Jenkins. The proceedings were heard by Burchardt J.
The court was required to determine whether the first respondent had contravened the regulations as alleged, and crucially, whether the second and third respondents were involved in these contraventions. Specifically, the court needed to assess the extent of the third respondent's involvement in the day-to-day management of the first respondent and his knowledge of and responsibility for the record-keeping and payslip obligations.
Burchardt J found that the first respondent had indeed failed to comply with the compliance notice, keep records, and provide payslips. The court determined that the second respondent was involved in all of these contraventions. Regarding the third respondent, the court found him to be involved in the contraventions relating to pay records and payslips. This conclusion was based on evidence that the third respondent was actively involved in the day-to-day management of the business, administered pay and associated records, and was aware that Ms. Jenkins was paid a flat rate of $21 per hour. The court rejected the third respondent's submissions that he had no responsibility for record-keeping and was merely following instructions, finding him to be plainly involved in the failures.
The matter was relisted for a further hearing to determine the imposition of penalties.
The court was required to determine whether the first respondent had contravened the regulations as alleged, and crucially, whether the second and third respondents were involved in these contraventions. Specifically, the court needed to assess the extent of the third respondent's involvement in the day-to-day management of the first respondent and his knowledge of and responsibility for the record-keeping and payslip obligations.
Burchardt J found that the first respondent had indeed failed to comply with the compliance notice, keep records, and provide payslips. The court determined that the second respondent was involved in all of these contraventions. Regarding the third respondent, the court found him to be involved in the contraventions relating to pay records and payslips. This conclusion was based on evidence that the third respondent was actively involved in the day-to-day management of the business, administered pay and associated records, and was aware that Ms. Jenkins was paid a flat rate of $21 per hour. The court rejected the third respondent's submissions that he had no responsibility for record-keeping and was merely following instructions, finding him to be plainly involved in the failures.
The matter was relisted for a further hearing to determine the imposition of penalties.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Penalty
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Vicarious Liability
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fair Work Ombudsman v ANSA Finance Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 833
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Fair Work Ombudsman v Cobra Security Services Pty Ltd
[2024] FedCFamC2G 336
Fair Work Ombudsman v ANSA Finance Pty Ltd
[2022] FedCFamC2G 833
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Fair Work Ombudsman v Joys Child Care Limited & ANOR
[2019] FCCA 3356
Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission
[2014] FCA 136
Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd
[2017] FCA 833