Fair Work Ombudsman v DTF World Square Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)

In this case, the Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against DTF World Square Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Selden Pty Ltd, two related companies operating under the "Din Tai Fung" brand, for alleged multiple contraventions of civil penalty provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The proceedings spanned a period before and after the introduction of amendments by the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 (Cth). The primary focus was on whether the companies knowingly made and kept false or misleading records, failed to make and keep records containing prescribed information, provided incorrect pay slips, failed to pay minimum entitlements, and required employees to work unreasonable hours. The court considered whether these actions were part of a systematic pattern and whether certain employees were involved in the contraventions.

The court identified several legal issues, including whether the companies contravened specific sections of the Fair Work Act by knowingly making and keeping false or misleading records, failing to maintain accurate records, and providing incorrect pay slips. It also considered whether the companies failed to pay minimum entitlements under the applicable modern award and required employees to work unreasonable hours. The court had to determine whether the conduct was part of a systematic pattern and whether specific employees were knowingly involved in the contraventions. The burden of proof was on the Fair Work Ombudsman to establish the contraventions to the requisite standard.

The court found that the Fair Work Ombudsman had successfully proven all the allegations against the companies. The evidence demonstrated that the companies knowingly made and kept false or misleading records, provided incorrect pay slips, failed to pay minimum entitlements, and required employees to work unreasonable hours. The court accepted that Ms Parmenas, the HR coordinator, knew about these issues and participated in the contraventions. The general manager, Ms Handoko, was also found to be knowingly involved. The court drew adverse inferences from the absence of evidence from the companies and their key employees, which supported the Fair Work Ombudsman's case.

The court ordered that within 14 days, the parties should agree on orders giving effect to these reasons and the matter should be listed for further case management. The court encouraged the parties to resolve as many remaining issues as possible to keep costs to a minimum. The final orders included setting a date for case management and providing liberty to apply on two days' notice.