Fair Work Ombudsman v Samurais Paradise Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2017] FCCA 2013
•9 August 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fair Work Ombudsman v Samurais Paradise Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 2013
[2017] FCCA 2013
9 August 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia against Samurais Paradise Pty Ltd (First Respondent) and an individual (Second Respondent). The dispute concerned allegations that the First Respondent had contravened various provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Restaurant Award*, including failing to pay minimum rates of pay, casual loadings, penalty rates for Sunday and public holiday work, late night and early morning penalties, minimum shift payments, and superannuation contributions. Additionally, the First Respondent was alleged to have made and used false or misleading employee records and failed to keep proper employee records and provide payslips. The Second Respondent was alleged to have been involved in these contraventions.
The court was required to determine whether the First Respondent had contravened the specified civil remedy provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Restaurant Award*. It also needed to determine whether the Second Respondent was involved in those contraventions, as defined by section 550(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
Judge Vasta found that the First Respondent had contravened multiple provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Restaurant Award* by failing to pay employees their minimum rates of pay, various loadings and penalty rates, minimum shift payments, and by failing to make required superannuation contributions. The court also found that the First Respondent had contravened regulations concerning the making and use of false or misleading employee records, and had failed to keep proper records and provide payslips. The Second Respondent was found to be involved in each of these contraventions.
Consequently, the court ordered the First Respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $246,400.00 and the Second Respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $38,000.00. The court also made orders regarding the payment of outstanding superannuation contributions, requiring the First Respondent to make these contributions within 28 days if not already done, and to pay the penalties to the Commonwealth within 18 months. Liberty was granted to the Applicant to apply for the matter to be relisted if any orders were not complied with.
The court was required to determine whether the First Respondent had contravened the specified civil remedy provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Restaurant Award*. It also needed to determine whether the Second Respondent was involved in those contraventions, as defined by section 550(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).
Judge Vasta found that the First Respondent had contravened multiple provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Restaurant Award* by failing to pay employees their minimum rates of pay, various loadings and penalty rates, minimum shift payments, and by failing to make required superannuation contributions. The court also found that the First Respondent had contravened regulations concerning the making and use of false or misleading employee records, and had failed to keep proper records and provide payslips. The Second Respondent was found to be involved in each of these contraventions.
Consequently, the court ordered the First Respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $246,400.00 and the Second Respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $38,000.00. The court also made orders regarding the payment of outstanding superannuation contributions, requiring the First Respondent to make these contributions within 28 days if not already done, and to pay the penalties to the Commonwealth within 18 months. Liberty was granted to the Applicant to apply for the matter to be relisted if any orders were not complied with.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Breach
-
Penalty
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australian Building And Construction Commissioner v Hanna and Anor (No.3) [2017] FCCA 2519
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Kaur v Bangari and Karyal Pty Ltd Trading as India Gate Warrnambool
[2020] FCCA 2961
Fair Work Ombudsman v Malevi Pty Ltd & Ors
[2020] FCCA 2875
Fair Work Ombudsman v Nobrace Centre Pty Ltd (in Liquidation)
[2019] FCCA 2970