Multivac Australia Pty Ltd (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Multivac Australia Pty Ltd (the applicant) against a decision to cancel its approval as a standard business sponsor, or alternatively, to bar it from sponsoring further individuals. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant had breached its sponsorship obligations under regulation 2.87 of the Migration Regulations 1994 by seeking to recover costs associated with a sponsored worker's visa and the Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) levy. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had breached regulation 2.87, which prohibits an approved sponsor from taking any action that would result in the transfer of certain costs, including those associated with sponsorship and recruitment, to another person, or that would result in another person paying such costs. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if a letter sent by the applicant to a sponsored worker, requiring repayment of the SAF levy and visa costs upon resignation, constituted a breach of this obligation.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had indeed sent a letter seeking to recover the SAF levy and associated costs, this action was taken due to a genuine misunderstanding by the Human Resources Manager regarding the legality of such recovery. The Tribunal noted that upon becoming aware of the potential breach, the applicant withdrew its intention to recover the costs and implemented processes to ensure future compliance. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the vulnerability of sponsored workers and the nature of the breach as technical and non-deliberate, with no direct harm or penalty to the employee.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision not to take any of the actions specified under section 140M of the Migration Act 1958. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's characterisation of the sponsorship breach as non-deliberate and technical, which was rectified without direct harm, and the absence of any evidence of repetition or other breaches by the applicant.