Fair Work Ombudsman v Shri Krishna Guru Pty Ltd

In *Fair Work Ombudsman v Shri Krishna Guru Pty Ltd*, Blake J of the Federal Court of Australia considered the appropriate pecuniary penalties to be imposed on the respondents for contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the Fast Food Industry Award 2010. The respondents admitted liability for a range of contraventions, including failing to provide minimum entitlements, pay correct wages and loadings, and keep proper employment records. The central dispute revolved around whether these contraventions should be treated as a single contravention for penalty purposes and the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic should affect the penalty calculation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate pecuniary penalties for the admitted contraventions. Key legal issues included whether the contraventions could be treated as a single contravention under section 557 of the *Fair Work Act* or under common law principles relating to a single course of conduct. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the respondents' business warranted a discount on the penalties, and what evidence would be required to support such a submission.

Blake J applied the principles of section 557 of the *Fair Work Act* and common law to group contraventions. The court accepted that contraventions of record-keeping and payslip provisions could be treated as a single contravention under section 557. Furthermore, contraventions relating to minimum adult wages and junior wages were grouped together under common law principles, as were contraventions concerning overtime payments for full-time and casual employees. The court also considered the size and financial resources of the business, noting that the respondents received a significant reduction in penalties due to these factors. The totality principle was applied, resulting in a 50% reduction on the total penalties payable.

The respondents were ordered to pay penalties to the Commonwealth of Australia. The court found that the respondents had admitted liability, compensated the affected employees, and that the totality principle, along with consideration of the business's size and financial resources, led to a substantial reduction in the overall penalty amount.