Fair Work Ombudsman v G.Q.Industries Pty Ltd

The Fair Work Ombudsman (the Applicant) brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against G.Q. Industries Pty Ltd (the First Respondent) and its sole director and shareholder, Mr. G. Quinn (the Second Respondent). The dispute concerned numerous contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the Building and Construction General On-Site Award 2010 (the Building Award) in relation to the employment of two apprentices, David van Heuzen and Joseph Melit. The First Respondent admitted to a range of contraventions, including failing to pay personal leave, public holiday entitlements, wages, allowances, overtime, and Saturday penalty rates, as well as taking adverse action against Mr. Melit for exercising a workplace right, failing to keep employee records, and failing to provide payslips. The Second Respondent admitted to being involved in these contraventions.

The court was required to determine the applicable principles for imposing pecuniary penalties in circumstances where the respondents had not appeared and had admitted contraventions. Specifically, the court needed to consider the nature and seriousness of the admitted contraventions, the vulnerability of the employees involved, the extent of the underpayments, and the role of the Second Respondent as the directing mind and will of the corporate employer. The court also had to assess the appropriate penalty to reflect the contraventions and deter future non-compliance.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles for determining pecuniary penalties under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the contraventions, the need for deterrence, and the impact on the employees. The court noted that the admitted contraventions involved significant underpayments of wages and entitlements to young apprentices, who were considered vulnerable employees. The court also took into account the deliberate nature of some contraventions, such as the failure to pay wages for extended periods and the adverse action taken against Mr. Melit. The Second Respondent's admitted involvement and responsibility for the company's operations were significant factors in assessing the penalty.

The court ordered the First Respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $32,347.20, reflecting the total amount of underpayments to the employees. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay pecuniary penalties of $10,000 for his involvement in the contraventions. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the Applicant's costs.