Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2016] FCCA 2744

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v PRIORITY MATTERS PTY & ANOR and
FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v SUPERLATTICE SOLAR PTY LTD & ANOR and
FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v GENEASYS PTY LTD & ANOR and
FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v KIA SILVERBROOK & ANOR and
FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v MPOWA PTY LIMITED & ANOR (No.3)

[2016] FCCA 2744

Catchwords:
PENALTY AND COSTS – Application for penalty and costs – the Court’s consideration of the factors relevant to penalty – whether the applicant’s failure to contact the ATO led to costs uncured by the directors – whether the Court can fix costs – appropriate costs ordered against the applicant.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 ss.546, 570, 577.

Federal Circuit Court of AustraliaAct 1999 s.14.

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001. r.16.05(2)(e)

Cases cited:

Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Cartledge [2014] FCA 1047.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2016] FCA 798.

Applicant:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

First Respondent:

PRIORITY MATTERS PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

KIA SILVERBROOK

Third Respondent:

FIONA INVERARITY

File Number:

SYG 3209 of 2013

Applicant:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

First Respondent:

SUPERLATTICE SOLAR PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

KIA SILVERBROOK

File Number:

SYG 3210 of 2013

Applicant:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

Second Respondent:

KIA SILVERBROOK

File Number:

SYG 3228 of 2013

Applicant:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

First Respondent:

KIA SILVERBROOK

Second Respondent:

JANETTE LEE

File Number:

SYG 1743 of 2014

Applicant:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN

First Respondent:

MPOWA PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent:

KIA SILVERBROOK

File Number:

SYG 1780 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Street

Hearing date:

21 October 2016

Date of Last Submission:

21 October 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

21 October 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr A Moses and Ms V McWilliam

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mr P Argy
Keypoint Law

ORDERS

SYG 3209 of 2013

Pursuant to s.546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the First Respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $45,000.00 within 28 days.
Pursuant to s.570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Applicant pay the costs of the Second Respondent in the proceedings as well as the costs ordered in SYG 3210 of 2013, SYG 3228 of 2013, SYG 1743 of 2014 and SYG 1780 of 2014, as one single set of costs in the fixed amount of $800,000.00.

SYG 3210 of 2013

Pursuant to s.546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the First Respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $5,000.00 within 28 days.
Pursuant to s.570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Applicant pay the costs of the Second Respondent as part of one single set of costs as fixed in matter number SYG 3209 of 2013.

SYG 3228 of 2013

Pursuant to s.570(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Applicant pay the costs of the Second…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FCCA 2744
Decision Date: 21 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against Priority Matters Pty Ltd concerning alleged contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The dispute centred on allegations that the company had failed to pay its employees their entitlements under the relevant modern award and enterprise agreement, and had also failed to keep proper records and provide pay slips as required by the Act.

The court was required to determine whether Priority Matters Pty Ltd had contravened specific provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) relating to minimum wages, overtime, and other entitlements stipulated in the applicable modern award and enterprise agreement. Further, the court had to assess whether the company had breached its obligations regarding record-keeping and the provision of accurate and timely pay slips to its employees.

Judge Street found that Priority Matters Pty Ltd had indeed contravened the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) in relation to the underpayment of employees and the failure to provide proper records and pay slips. The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act and the terms of the modern award and enterprise agreement. The reasoning focused on the clear obligations imposed on employers to ensure compliance with minimum employment standards and record-keeping requirements.

The court ordered Priority Matters Pty Ltd to pay pecuniary penalties for the contraventions found. Additionally, the company was ordered to rectify the underpayments to the affected employees, with the precise amounts to be determined and paid in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders