Fair Work Ombudsman v Corioliss Pty Ltd
[2017] FCCA 2479
•13 October 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v CORIOLISS PTY LTD & ORS | [2017] FCCA 2479 |
| Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Penalty – First Respondent in liquidation – where employees were predominantly young persons on student or working holiday visas – where Respondents had been the subject of previous complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman – Third Respondent demonstrated a lack of genuine contrition – conduct deliberate – specific deterrence – general deterrence – pecuniary penalty imposed. |
| Legislation: Corporations Act 2001, s.500 Fair Work Act 2009, ss.45, 535, 536, 546, 557 Fair Work Regulations 2009, regs.3.44(1), 3.44(6) |
| Cases cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46 |
| Applicant: | FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN |
| First Respondent: | CORIOLISS PTY LTD |
| Second Respondent: | HAIM TONER DIAMOND |
| Third Respondent: | RINA DIAMOND |
| File Number: | MLG 651 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Hartnett |
| Hearing date: | 15 May 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 13 October 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor appearing as Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Fordyce |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman |
| The Second Respondent: | In Person |
| The Third Respondent: | In Person |
ORDERS
Pursuant to s.546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the Second Respondent pay pecuniary penalties in the total sum of $30,600 in respect of each of the contraventions set out at subparagraphs (a)-(i) and (l) of order 1 of the Court’s Orders of 12 December 2016 (‘the Orders’).
Pursuant to s.546(1) of the Act, the Third Respondent pay pecuniary penalties in the total sum of $40,000 in respect of each of the contraventions set out in order 1 of the Orders.
Pursuant to s.546(3)(a) of the Act, the pecuniary penalties be paid to the Commonwealth within 28 days of these Orders.
Pursuant to s.546(3)(c) of the Act, in the event that some or all of the amounts payable to the employees in accordance with orders 5 and 6 of the Orders are extinguished as a result of the bankruptcy of the Second Respondent and/or Third Respondent, the Fair Work Ombudsman may remit, at its discretion, the penalties paid to the Commonwealth to the employees in the percentages referred to in the orders, until the employees’ claims are met.
There is liberty for the Applicant to apply to the Court for the matter to be re-listed in the event that any of the Court’s orders are not complied with.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 651 of 2016
| FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN |
Applicant
And
| CORIOLISS PTY LTD |
First Respondent
| HAIM TONER DIAMOND |
Second Respondent
| RINA DIAMOND |
Third Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
These proceedings relate to 11 former employees of the First Respondent who worked as sales assistants at retail kiosks formerly located in the Chadstone and Northland shopping centres in Victoria. The employees were employed on the basis that their remuneration would be based partly on their hours worked and partly commission-based.
The contraventions in respect of these employees are broadly summarised by the Applicant as the First Respondent’s:-
a)failure to pay the employees amounts sufficient to meet their entitlements under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 (Modern Award), including in respect of minimum wages, casual loading, penalty rates for weekends and public holidays, giving rise to contraventions of s.45 of the Act;
b)failure to engage the employees for a minimum of three hours as prescribed by cl.13.4 of the Modern Award, giving rise to contraventions of s.45 of the Act;
c)failure to provide the employees with higher rates of pay when performing higher duties as prescribed by cl.20.12 of the Modern Award, giving rise to contraventions of s.45 of the Act;
d)failure to provide the employees with meal breaks as prescribed by cl.31.1 of the Modern Award, giving rise to contraventions of s.45 of the Act;
e)creation of employment records that included inaccurate information in respect of amounts paid to the employees and hours worked by the employees, knowing this information was false or misleading; and the subsequent decision to provide these to the regulator knowing them to be false or misleading This conduct gave rise to contraventions of regs.3.44(1) and 3.44(6) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’); and
f)failure to provide pay slips within one working day of paying amounts in relation to the performance of work, and to provide pay slips containing the information required under s.536(2) of the Act and Division 3 of Part 3-6 of the Regulations.
The Second Respondent was involved in each of the First Respondent’s contraventions other than the false records contraventions referred to at paragraph 2(e) above, and was at all relevant times the sole director of the First Respondent, joint or sole shareholder, and a controlling mind of the First Respondent.
The Third Respondent was involved in each of the First Respondent’s contraventions, was a shareholder of the First Respondent until 24 April 2015, and at all relevant times a controlling mind of the First Respondent. In relation to the contraventions referred to at paragraph 2(e) above, the Third Respondent created the records and knowingly provided them to the Fair Work Ombudsman (‘the FWO’).
On 12 December 2016 the Court made declarations and orders relevantly as follows:-
“THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. Upon admissions which the First Respondent is taken to have made consequent upon default, pursuant to rule 13.03A(2) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (‘the FCC Rules’), the Court declares that the First Respondent has contravened the following civil remedy provisions:
(a) section 45 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the FW Act’), by failing to pay each of the Adult Employees the minimum rates of pay prescribed by clause 17 of the General Retail Industry Award 2010 (‘the Award’);
(b) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to pay the Junior Employees the required minimum junior rates of pay prescribed by clause 18 of the Award;
(c) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to pay the Employees the required casual loading prescribed by clause 13 of the Award;
(d) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to pay each of the Employees Saturday penalty rates prescribed by clause 29.4 of the Award;
(e) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to pay each of the Employees the Sunday penalty rates prescribed by clause 29.4 of the Award;
(f) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to pay each of the Employees the public holiday penalty rates prescribed by clause 29.4 of the Award;
(g) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to engage the Employees for a minimum of three hours as prescribed by clause 13.4 of the Award;
(h) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to provide the Employees with higher rates of pay as prescribed by clause 20.12 of the Award;
(i) section 45 of the FW Act, by failing to provide the Employees with meal breaks as prescribed by clause 31.1 of the Award;
(j) regulation 3.44(1) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (‘FW Regulations’), by making and keeping employee records which it knew to be false or misleading;
(k) regulation 3.44(6) of the FW Regulations, by making use of entries in employee records for Jamie Nilsson, by providing those records to the Applicant, knowing that those records were false or misleading;
(l) section 536(1) of the FW Act, by failing to give the Employees a pay slip within one working day of paying an amount to that Employee in relation to the performance of work or, alternatively, by failing to provide payslips containing the information required under section 536(2) of the FW Act and Division 3 of Part 3-6 of the FW Regulations.
2. Upon the admissions which are taken to have been made consequent upon default, pursuant to subrule 13.03A(2) of the FCC Rules, the Court declares that the Second Respondent was involved in each of the contraventions of the First Respondent as set out in the declarations at paragraphs 1(a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i) and (l) above, pursuant to section 550(1) of the FW Act.
3. Upon the admissions which are taken to have been made consequent upon default, pursuant to subrule 13.03A(2) of the FCC Rules, the Court declares that the Third Respondent was involved in each of the contraventions of the First Respondent as set out in the the declarations in paragraph 1 above, pursuant to section 550(1) of the FW Act.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
4. Default judgment be entered for the Applicant against the First, Second and Third Respondents pursuant to rule 13.03B(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (‘FCC Rules’).
5. Pursuant to section 545(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the First Respondent, Second Respondent and Third Respondent, jointly and severally, pay the amount of $17,247.48 or such amount as remains outstanding (‘Total Amount Owing’) to the Applicant within 28 days of the Court’s order, to be distributed by the Applicant as follows:
Employee Amount Owed Percentage of Total Wages Underpayment Hae Young Lee $255.64 1.48% Lorna Nugent $787.83 4.57% Louisa Belle Poad $394.84 2.29% Tatjana Walter $1,707.30 9.90% Natalya Ferreria $2,121.52 12.30% Lena Borali $1,918.61 11.12% Jamie Nilsson $745.67 4.32% Charlotte LiIley $2,753.96 15.97% Laura Brinkmann $3,292.96 19.09% Charlotte Scanlan $1,750.32 10.15% Vera Schroedel $1,518.83 8.8% 6. In the event that the Applicant receives a partial payment of the Total Amount Owing, the amount received shall be distributed to the employees referred to in paragraph 2 (‘Employees’) in accordance with the respective percentage of the Total Amount Owing.
7. Pursuant to section 547(2) of the FW Act, the First Respondent, Second Respondent and Third Respondent, jointly and severally, pay interest on the Total Amount Owing, in the amounts set out in Schedule 1.
8. The amounts referred to above at paragraphs 5 and 7 are to be paid to the Applicant and distributed to the Employees in accordance with the percentages referred to at paragraph 2 above.”
Imposition of Penalties
The First Respondent went into external administration in December 2016. The Applicant did not seek leave to continue to the proceedings as against the company. The proceedings against the First Respondent are thus stayed pursuant to s.500 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
The Applicant seeks the imposition of pecuniary penalties on the Second and Third Respondents and provided submissions as to appropriate pecuniary penalties as set out at Annexure A to these reasons.
The Applicant submits that significant penalties are warranted in this matter, to reflect the following key considerations:-
a)the vulnerability of the employees by reason of their visa status and the Respondents’ different treatment towards them. Before the Court are the results of a visa status search in relation to the employees of the First Respondent during the period of 28 July 2014 to 31 January 2015:-
Person
Visa Status between 28/07/2014- 31/01/2015
Haeyoung Lee
TU572 (student)
Granted 31/10/2013 – still in effect
Louisa Belle Poad
TZ414 (working holiday)
Granted 04/09/2014 – ceased 23/10/2015
Tatjana Walter
TZ414(working holiday)
Granted 11/08/2014 – ceased 09/06/2015
Natalya Ferreria Dos Santos
TU572 (student)
Granted 31/07/2013 – ceased 25/09/2014
BVA
Granted 23/09/2014 – ceased 24/10/2014
TU572 (student)
Granted 24/10/2014 – still in effect
Jamie Ellen Evelina Nilsson
TZ417(2nd working holiday)
Granted 12/09/2013 – ceased 20/09/2014
TU572 (student)
Granted 24/10/2014 – ceased 06/04/2015
Vera Antonia Schroedel
TZ414 (working holiday)
Granted 06/09/2013 – ceased 20/09/2014
TZ417 (2nd working holiday)
Granted 20/09/2014 – ceased 12/10/2015
b)the failure by the Respondents to modify their conduct notwithstanding multiple prior warnings by the Applicant and the provision of information about minimum entitlements of the employees;
c)the multifaceted and deliberate nature of the non-compliance;
d)the creation and provision of false and misleading records to the FWO in the course of its investigations;
e)the absence of any genuine contrition or cooperation; characterised by the Respondents’ provision of false, contradictory, or self-serving explanations for their conduct which demonstrate a lack of regard for the regulatory regime; and
f)the need for specific and general deterrence, particularly in the retail industry.
The Applicant relied upon the following affidavit evidence together with written submissions:-
a)affidavit of Lily Fordyce filed on 30 November 2016;
b)affidavit of Fair Work Inspector Kim Nhu Chum, affirmed 10 March 2017;
c)affidavit of Jessica Sofia Alice Dolan affirmed 23 March 2017.
The Respondents relied upon the following affidavit evidence:-
a)affidavit of Haim Tomer Diamond sworn 10 May 2017;
b)affidavit of Rina Diamond sworn 10 May 2017.
Principles relevant to determination of penalty
As accurately set out by the Applicant’s Counsel in submissions:-
a)The High Court recently explained the purpose of the imposition of civil penalties in Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46 (‘Cth v FWBII’) at [55]:-
“... whereas criminal penalties import notions of retribution and rehabilitation, the purpose of a civil penalty, as French J explained in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd, is primarily if not wholly protective in promoting the public interest in compliance: Punishment for breaches of the criminal law traditionally involves three elements: deterrence, both general and individual, retribution and rehabilitation. Neither retribution nor rehabilitation, within the sense of the Old and New Testament moralities that imbue much of our criminal law, have any part to play in economic regulation of the kind contemplated by Pt IV [of the Trade Practices Act]...The principal, and I think probably the only, object of the penalties imposed by s 76 is to attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravenor and by others who might be tempted to contravene the Act.”
b)In agreeing with French J (as his Honour then was) the High Court confirmed that consideration of the well known penalty factors, set out in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 521 but adopted in this jurisdiction in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Pangea Restaurant and Bar [2007] FMCA 7 (‘Pangea’), is to be undertaken within the overarching consideration of what penalty will achieve the principal object of deterrence; both specific and general.
c)In Cth v FWBII French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ held:-
“It is also true, as the Full Court observed, that the regulator in a civil penalty proceeding is not disinterested. As has been seen, under the BCII Act, the Director's statutory functions include monitoring and promoting appropriate standards of conduct by building industry participants generally. It is, therefore, naturally to be assumed that the Director will fashion penalty submissions with an overall view to achieving that objective and thus perhaps, if not probably, with one eye to considerations beyond the case in hand. That consideration, however, supports, rather than detracts from, the propriety of a court receiving joint (or separate) submissions as to facts and penalty and imposing the proposed penalty if persuaded that it is appropriate. As was emphasised in NW Frozen Foods, it is the function of the relevant regulator to regulate the industry in order to achieve compliance and, accordingly, it is to be expected that the regulator will be in a position to offer informed submissions as to the effects of contravention on the industry and the level of penalty necessary to achieve compliance.”
d)At paragraph 87 of Cth v FWBII Gageler J relevantly held:-
“Assuming without deciding, as in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar, that a regulator bringing civil penalty proceedings is "subject to some form of duty ... that can be described as a duty to conduct litigation fairly", the position of the regulator cannot be equated with the position of a prosecutor. The regulator is not bound by the nature of the proceeding to be dispassionate in the relevant sense. Subject to its statutory charter, the regulator is permitted to advocate for a litigious outcome which the regulator considers to be in the public interest.”
Course of conduct and grouping
Section 557 of the Act provides that, for specified contraventions of the Act, two or more contraventions of the same civil remedy provision will be treated as a single contravention where that contravention was committed by the same person, and arose from the same course of conduct.
The Applicant accepts that contraventions of the same terms of the Modern Award, and ss.45, 535 and 536 of the Act or the Regulations, in relation to multiple employees, while separate breaches of separate obligations, may be treated as one contravention under s.557 of the Act, provided there is one course of conduct.
The Applicant submits however that the failure to pay penalty rates for work performed on Saturdays (clause 29.4(b) of the Modern Award), on Sunday (clause 29.4(c) of the Modern Award) and on public holidays (clause 29.4(d) of the Modern Award), and to pay casual loading (clause 13.2 of the Modern Award) are contraventions relating to separate and distinct entitlements under the Modern Award that are directed at different purposes. In making this submission, the Applicant referred to the decision of Riley FM (as her Honour then was) in Fair Work Ombudsman v Garfield Berry Farm Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 885 (‘Garfield Berry’) at [28]:-
“On one view, the decision to pay Mr McKay a flat and extremely low hourly rate could be regarded as a single course of conduct. However, that is to see the situation only from the second respondent's point of view and not from the industrial umpire's point of view. For a very long time in this country, industrial instruments have provided for wages to be calculated by reference to a variety of entitlements, including whether the hours worked were ordinary time, whether the employee was a casual and whether the employee had taken annual leave to which he or she was entitled. Each of those entitlements gives rise to a separate and distinct obligation on the part of the employer. A failure to comply with any of them exposes an employer to the risk of penalty. It would be fundamentally at odds with our system of workplace entitlement to treat a breach of several obligations as if it were a breach of only one".
The position in Garfield Berry, that a respondent’s decision to pay flat rates of pay does not warrant grouping of separate contraventions, has been adopted by this Court on a number of occasions.[1]
[1] Fair Work Ombudsman v Something Aussie [2017] FCCA 186, 27.
The Applicant submits that the Contraventions include 11 groups for which the Applicant seeks penalties against each of the Respondents, as set out in Annexure A to these reasons.
The Respondents did not address in any way any of the principles as discussed above.
The Court accepts as appropriate the groupings as proposed by the Applicant.
Maximum Penalties
At the time that the Contraventions occurred, a penalty unit was defined as $180.
The maximum penalties the Court could impose, in monetary terms, for each of the groups within the Contraventions are:-
a)Second Respondent: $96,900; and
b)Third Respondent: $107,100
The aggregate penalties the Applicant submits to be an appropriate response to the Contraventions are:-
a)$30,600 to $41,820 in respect of the Second Respondent; and
b)$35,360 to $47,600 in respect of the Third Respondent.
Application of Principles on the Imposition of Penalties
The factors to consider in determination of penalties are well known and set out in Pangea; Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14]; Stuart-Mahoney v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2008) 177 IR 61 at [40]; John Holland Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia(No.2) (2010) 192 IR 431 at [27]; McDonald v Australian Building & Construction Commissioner [2011] FCAFC 29 at [15]; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger (2003) 127 FCR 309 at [51]; and Hadgkiss v Sunland Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1566 at [11].
Similar previous conduct
The Second and Third Respondent are a married couple who jointly managed the business operated by the First Respondent. The Respondents have not previously been the subject of legal proceedings for contraventions of Australian workplace laws. However, since the business began operating in 2006, the First Respondent has been the subject of nine separate complaints. In respect of the majority of those, the Respondents have been cautioned about minimum rates of pay, and so were on notice of their obligations.
At the time of the employees’ employment with the First Respondent, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association – Victorian Shops Award 2000 (‘Pre-Modern Award’) provided minimum hourly rates of $18.52 per hour for adult employees, and $12.97 or $14.82 per hour for junior employees (depending on age). Other than Ms Nilsson (who was paid between $18.97 and $19.26 per hour), the employees were paid actual hourly rates which were grossly less than the lawful rates, of between $7.86 and $14.90 per hour.
Nature, extent and circumstances of the contravening conduct
The employees were predominantly young workers subject to subclass 572 (student), 414 or 418 (working holiday) visas when they performed work for the First Respondent. They were treated less favourably than Australian employees.
During the Applicant’s investigations, the Third Respondent threatened to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that Ms Lee had been working more than 20 hours per week if she did not withdraw her complaint to the FWO, stating in an email:-
“Your limit of 20 hours work as a student was not kept as it should. I have to forward this information to the immigration unless the complaint will be cancelled by you.”
The Respondents did not provide any explanation or response when this was raised with them during the course of the Applicant’s investigation. As submitted by the Applicant, the above statement exhibits a concerning awareness of the employee’s vulnerability and a willingness to exploit such vulnerability to the Respondents’ benefit.
To the extent that the Respondents have asserted ignorance as to Award obligations, the Applicant submitted and the Court accepts that this position was disingenuous and should not be accepted in light of being specifically informed by the Applicant that the Modern Award applied to the First Respondent in relation to the complaints of Ms Vargheese, Ms Paras and Ms Ferraro, and in Fair Work Infoline enquiries made by the Third Respondent.
Other Matters
The Respondents made no admissions of liability nor did they enter into a Statement of Agreed Facts with the Applicant in relation to these proceedings. This necessitated the application for default judgment.
The conduct in this matter is clearly deliberate. The making and giving to the Applicant of the false and misleading records was clearly deliberate.
The Respondents have sought to justify their actions based on their status as a small business. Even as a small business however they had an obligation to meet minimum standards in relation to their employees; they cannot overcome financial difficulties by underpaying their employees.[2]
[2] Kelly at [27]; Rajagopalan v BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1412, 27.
Both the Second and Third Respondents participated in the Applicant’s investigations to varying degrees. The Second Respondent was more co-operative than the Third Respondent. This interaction also included however the provision of inconsistent and at times knowingly false and misleading information.
The Applicant submitted that the Third Respondent displayed a lack of insight as to the seriousness of non-compliance with workplace laws, and that her responses failed to acknowledge responsibility for her conduct when the inconsistencies in information were raised with her. Further, that her conduct demonstrated a lack of genuine contrition. The evidence bears out this submission. The evidence however supports there being some degree of remorse on the part of the Second Respondent.
Deterrence
It is well established that the need for specific and general deterrence is the primary consideration in the imposition of a civil penalty.
There is no evidence to suggest the Second and Third Respondents are currently operating any further businesses or indeed intend to. Nevertheless the penalty imposed must provide specific deterrence on the facts herein. Whilst the aggregate penalty imposed must not be crushing or oppressive, it must nevertheless bear relativity to the seriousness of the conduct engaged in by the Respondents.[3] The Applicant submits that the penalty ranges set out in Annexure A are appropriate.
[3] Fair Work Ombudsman v Promoting U Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] FMCA 58.
The need for general deterrence is also important as there are many complaints and civil penalty impositions in relation to retail businesses, which the Applicant submits is characterised by a high level of workers who are young and/or holders of visas and generally reliant on minimum wages.
Consideration
The Respondents submit that penalty ranges as proposed by the Applicant are crushing and oppressive. The Court bears ultimate responsibility for assessing penalty. The deliberateness of the conduct and the Third Respondent falsifying records is of particular concern to the Court, and a penalty that reflects those elements is appropriate. On the other hand, the Court takes into account, as it must, matters beneficial to the Respondents. The Respondents did for a time, try to address the underpayments. A repayment plan was entered into by the Respondents with the Applicant to pay the employees the monies owing and in relation to which payments of $5,180.06 were made. Included in this amount were payments to Ms Lee who received a total of $4,178.95 out of a total amount of $4,439.59 calculated as owing to her by the First Respondent. Ongoing agreed payments ceased, however because the Respondents had no further income from the business. There is no evidence before the Court that any further repayments were made.
The Second and Third Respondents cooperated by engaging a solicitor and endeavouring to achieve resolution of the matter as between the parties. After having indicated through their solicitors that full admissions would be made and an agreed statement of facts entered into, they no longer had the funds to engage their solicitor in an ongoing capacity and instead allowed the matter to proceed as an undefended hearing.
The Second Respondent suffers from significant and painful medical issues and is unemployed despite his attempts to find employment. The Third Respondent is now a full time student receiving Centrelink payments. The Second and Third Respondents have two children to support and care for. Despite the Third Respondent working for three years, seven days a week in the First Respondent’s business and the operation of the business for approximately ten years, the Respondents have no assets. They rent their accommodation. The likelihood of an improvement in their financial position is years off. Any penalty will oppress them and at the higher end of the proposed range will be ‘crushing’ but matters of specific and general deterrence require a penalty.
Accordingly, the Court will make orders for the imposition of civil penalties on the Second and Third Respondents as ordered.
I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett
Associate:
Date: 13 October 2017
ANNEXURE A – Penalty Tables
| Contravention | Maximum Penalty | Second Respondent | Third Respondent | |
| 1 | Section 45- Failure to pay minimum weekly wage Cl 17 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 70-80% $7,140-$8,160 | 70-80% $7,140-$8,160 |
| 2 | Section 45- Failure to pay junior rates Cl 18 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | ||
| 3 | Section 45- Failure to pay casual loading Cl 13 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 60-80% $6,120-$8,160 | 60-80% $6,120-$8,160 |
| 4 | Section 45- Failure to pay Saturday penalty rate Cl 29.4 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 30-40% $3,060-$4,080 | 30-40% $3,060-$4,080 |
| 5 | Section 45- Failure to pay Sunday penalty rate Cl 29.4 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 30-50% $3,060-$5,100 | 30-50% $3,060-$5,100 |
| 6 | Section 45- Failure to pay public holiday penalty rates Cl 29.4 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 30-50% $3,060-$5,100 | 30-50% $3,060-$5,100 |
| 7 | Section 45- Failure to engage for 3 hours Cl 13.4 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 10-20% $1,020-$2,040 | 10-20% $1,020-$2,040 |
| 8 | Section 45- Failure to pay higher duties Cl 20.12 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | No penalty sought | No penalty sought |
| 9 | Section 45- Failure to provide meal breaks Cl 31.1 | 60 penalty units $10,200.00 | 40-50% $4,080-$5,100 | 40-50% $4,080-$5,100 |
| 10 | Reg 3.44(1)- Keeping false or misleading records | 20 penalty units $3,400 | Not alleged | 60-80% $2,040-$2,720 |
| 11 | Reg 3.44(6)- Making use of false or misleading records | 20 penalty units $3,400 | Not alleged | 80-90% $2,720-$3,060 |
| 12 | Section 536- Failure to provide pay slips | 30 penalty units $5,100 | 60-80% $3,060-$4,080 | 60-80% $3,060-$4,080 |
| TOTAL | $195,400 | |||
| Total Low Range | $30,600 | $35,360 | ||
| Total High Range | $41,820 | $47,600 |
12
6