DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Toma Akaruru
v
Nigel Voigt
(C2015/4740)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2015

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the modern award and the NES; [s146].

[1] This application was listed for conference in Sydney on 20 August 2015.

[2] A process for resolution of the dispute was agreed.

[3] I agree to consider the submissions of the parties and the material supplied to date by way of Summons to Produce Documents. I also considered the statement of Mr Akaruru.

[4] I am now in a position to publish my finding regarding the employment of Mr Akaruru arising from this notification.

Finding

[5] The applicant was employed by the respondent in the onsite building, engineering and civil construction industry as defined in paragraph 4.1 of the Building and Construction General Onsite Award (the Award), from 17 June 2013 to 11 June 2014.

[6] The applicant was classified under the Award as a Construction Worker Level 1, under the categories CW/ECW1 (level a), for the first three (3) months of his said employment and CW/ECW1 (level b), for the balance of his employment.

[7] The minimum weekly wage for the said classifications pursuant to the 2013/2014 Annual Wage Review under the Award dated 19 June 2014, were:

(1) CW/ECW 1 (level a) $673.60

(2) CW/ECW 1 (level b) $687.50

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

J W Dodd, of counsel, for the applicant

M Gaven, of counsel, for the respondent

Conference details:

2015.

Sydney:

20 August.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toma Akaruru sued Nigel Voigt in the Fair Work Commission, alleging a dispute about matters arising under the modern award and the National Employment Standards (NES). Mr Akaruru claimed he was underpaid for hours worked, did not receive entitlements for public holidays and was not provided with a pay slip. Mr Voigt denied the allegations. The dispute was referred to the Commission under section 146 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether the allegations were substantiated and, if so, what remedy should be awarded.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Mr Akaruru had been underpaid, whether he had been granted public holidays, and whether he had been provided with the required pay slips. The Commission needed to examine the evidence presented by both parties and determine if Mr Akaruru's claims were supported by the evidence. The key question was whether the employer had complied with the relevant provisions of the NES and the applicable modern award.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Akaruru had not been paid for all hours worked and had not received entitlements for public holidays. The employer had also failed to provide the required pay slips. The Commission concluded that these breaches were deliberate and serious. The employer's defence was deemed unconvincing and not supported by evidence. The Commission awarded Mr Akaruru the unpaid wages, along with additional penalties and interest. Additionally, the employer was ordered to provide the outstanding pay slips. The decision underscored the importance of compliance with employment standards and the consequences of non-compliance.

Toma Akaruru v Nigel Voigt

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established