HR practitioners are amongst those who have been held liable as accessories to their organisation's breaches of the Fair Work Act
by Julia Sutherland, Counsel, Aushurst
As data released by the Fair Work Ombudsman shows, there is an increasing trend to name third parties in claims for breach of the Fair Work Act. During the 2016-2017 financial year, 93% of the matters that the Ombudsman filed in court sought orders against third party "accessories".
HR practitioners are amongst those who have been held liable as accessories to their organisation's breaches of the Fair Work Act. An HR professional can be held liable as an accessory if they are involved or knowingly concerned in a breach of any civil penalty provision of the Fair Work Act.
HR practitioners may also be held liable as accessories under anti-discrimination legislation.
Developments in relation to labour hire licensing laws and proposed whistleblowing laws should also be carefully monitored as they too may render individuals personally liable.
What is accessorial liability?
Accessorial liability is centred on an individual's involvement in a breach.
The primary contravener is generally an organisation. For example, the organisation has committed a breach of the Fair Work Act by failing to pay its employees award wages or by taking adverse action against an employee.
Individuals who are employed by the organisation may be liable as accessories for breaches of the Fair Work Act committed by the organisation. People who may be considered accessories under the Fair Work Act range from those who act as the agent through whom the employer commits the breach (eg the person telling the employee s/he is dismissed, or a recruitment agent) to individuals who provide support to the employer (eg HR managers).
Accessorial liability can attach to any civil penalty provision in the Fair Work Act, including breaches of:
Accessorial liability can also arise under anti-discrimination legislation where an HR practitioner causes, instructs, induces, aids or permits an employee to engage in discriminatory conduct. For example, an HR manager supports a manager to make a female employee redundant while she is on parental leave because the employee is on parental leave.
Other ways in which personal liability may arise
Queensland and South Australia have recently enacted labour hire licensing laws that apply to the supply of labour hire services. An individual may be found personally liable for providing labour hire services without a licence or for entering into an arrangement with an unlicensed provider. Similar legislation is proposed for Victoria.
Under proposed whistleblower reforms in the private sector, an individual may be personally liable if s/he fails to keep the identity of a whistleblower confidential or victimises, or threatens to victimise a whistleblower.
What penalties could an HR practitioner face?
Source of breach |
Maximum penalty per breach for an individual |
Fair Work Act |
$12,600 or $126,000 for a "serious contravention" (ie an organisation knowingly breaches a provision of the Fair Work Act and this was part of a systematic pattern of conduct) |
Anti-discrimination laws |
No penalties but orders for compensation can be awarded and these are uncapped in many jurisdictions |
Labour hire licensing laws |
$130,439.10 or 3 years' prison (Queensland) $140,000 (South Australia) $126,856 (proposed for Victoria) |
Proposed whistleblowing laws |
$200,000 |
How do I manage these risks?
There are five key steps to managing these risks:
HR practitioners are uniquely placed to influence and encourage compliance within organisations. If you understand your role, the business and the legal framework within which your business operates, you are likely to be in a good position to positively influence the business in its employment decisions and minimise the risk of any successful proceedings against the business or against you personally.
Julia Sutherland, Counsel, Aushurst