FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WORKPLACE OMBUDSMAN v GOLDEN MAPLE PTY LTD & ORS | [2009] FMCA 664 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Penalty – admitted breach of civil penalty provision – consideration of factors relevant to penalty – course of conduct – whether more than one penalty sought. |
| Migration Act1958 (Cth) Restaurant, Tearoom and Catering Workers Award 1979 (WA), cls.11(4) and 26 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.3(c), (f), 182(1), 185(2), 235(2), 719(1), (2), (4), 728 Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | WORKPLACE OMBUDSMAN |
| First Respondent: | GOLDEN MAPLE PTY LTD |
| Second Respondent: | CITYTEAM PTY LTD |
| Third Respondent: | LAWRENCE CHIA |
| File Number: | PEG 180 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 23 April 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 April 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 31 July 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr T Woodland |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Clayton Utz |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr A O Karstaedt |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | James Chong Lawyers |
ORDERS
The first respondent pay a penalty of $36,000 for:
(a)contravention of s.185(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
(b)contraventions of s.182(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
(c)contravention…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Workplace Ombudsman v Golden Maple Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 664
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the Golden Maple NAPSA to the facts of the case. Specifically, the court needed to determine the extent of the contraventions and the appropriate penalties for the breaches. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the culpability of the respondents, and the need for deterrence and compliance with workplace laws.
After examining the evidence and submissions, the court found that Golden Maple Pty Ltd and its directors had contravened various sections of the Act and clauses of the Golden Maple NAPSA. The court found that the contraventions included failure to provide employees with a copy of their employment contracts, failure to provide employees with a copy of the relevant award, and failure to pay penalty rates. The court held that the respondents' actions were deliberate and constituted serious breaches of workplace laws. Consequently, the court imposed penalties on Golden Maple Pty Ltd and its directors for their respective contraventions.
The final orders of the court mandated that the first respondent, Golden Maple Pty Ltd, pay a penalty of $36,000 for multiple contraventions of the Act and the Golden Maple NAPSA. The second and third respondents, who were directors of the company, were ordered to pay penalties of $4,125 and $3,300 respectively for their contraventions. All penalties were to be paid to the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund by 4.00pm on 31 August 2009.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The first respondent pay a penalty of $36,000 for:
(a) contravention of s.185(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
(b) contraventions of s.182(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
(c) contravention of clause 11(4) of the notional agreement preserving State awards (Golden Maple NAPSA).
(d) contravention of clause 26 of the Golden Maple NAPSA.
(e) contravention of s.235(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
2.
The second respondent pay a penalty of $4,125 for the contravention of s.235(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
3.
The third respondent pay a penalty of $3,300 for his contraventions of s.182(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
4.
Payment of the penalties prescribed in orders (1), (2) and (3) be made to the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund by 4.00pm on 31 August 2009.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.