'Employers ignore the FWO and the court, at their peril,' says decision
Former operators of a café in inner Sydney faced significant penalties totaling almost $125,000, as ruled by the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
More Than Skin Pty Ltd, which operated The Noshery café in Glebe, incurred penalties of $99,900, while Lila Stojcevski and her brother, Lupo Stojcevski, co-directors of the company, faced collective penalties of around $24,000.
These penalties were a consequence of More Than Skin's failure to adhere to three compliance notices from the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The notices ordered the calculation and back-payment of entitlements owed to three café workers for periods spanning September to December 2020, coupled with violations of pay slip regulations.
The affected workers, comprising two international students and a working holiday visa holder, held roles in both kitchen and waitstaff capacities.
The co-directors were implicated in the breach of compliance notices and the failure to furnish pay slips. The court, in addition to imposing penalties, ordered More Than Skin to fully compensate the workers, encompassing superannuation and interest.
The FWO initiated the investigation following requests for assistance from the affected workers. According to records, a Fair Work Inspector issued compliance notices to More Than Skin between March and May 2021.
The inspector believed that the workers had not received their minimum casual wage entitlements, including penalties for weekend and public holiday work, as mandated by the Restaurant Industry Award 2020. Furthermore, the company neglected to provide pay slips to two of the workers.
In delivering the judgement, the court remarked on the lack of contrition and responsibility exhibited by the company and the co-directors. One of the latter’s conduct during dealings with the FWO was further characterised as "deliberately uncooperative."
The court said that the pay slip contraventions "were not the result of oversight or any other mistake by the company or [its directors]," noting that the misconduct was "deliberate."
Notably, more than two years after the compliance notices were issued, the workers remained unpaid.
"The failures appear to have been deliberate and in disregard for the company’s obligations as an employer. Despite faint attempts to resist responsibility for the obligations in question, no real attempts were every made by (or on behalf of) the company to demonstrate any proper basis for the failure to comply," the court said.
In explaining the amount of the penalty, the court said that the imposition serves as a reminder to employers that misconduct will not be tolerated.
"Employers ignore the FWO, and moreover the orders of the Court, at their peril. A significant penalty will serve as a general deterrent to such conduct by any employer," it added.
