A Queensland construction company has been penalised a total of $177,174 for underpaying two young apprentices $32,347.
The Federal Circuit Court fined G.Q. Industries Pty Ltd $147,645 and the company’s director, Brendan Angus, $29,529. The full-time carpentry apprentices, aged between 17 and 20 at the time of employment, usually worked six days per week including overtime between September 2013 and June 2015. They were paid below their minimum entitlements owed under the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2010, including base rates for some ordinary hours, Saturday penalty rates, overtime rates, public holiday pay, annual and personal leave entitlements, safety net contractual entitlements and travel entitlements.
Angus and the company also refused to provide work or pay for 11 weeks for one apprentice who took two days of sick leave, despite providing a doctor’s certificate. The training contract required him to be provided with 38 hours’ work per week.
Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said, “It is unlawful for employers to take adverse action against a worker for exercising their workplace rights, such as taking sick leave, and we will consider enforcement action whenever this is found.”
Parker added, “We also treat breaches involving young workers, including apprentices, particularly seriously as they are often vulnerable as they start their careers. Any young workers with concerns should contact us.”
The Court further found that the company failed to provide any payslips to one of the apprentices for 16 months, a violation of laws regarding frequency-of-pay, record-keeping, and payslips.
Judge Gregory Egan said the contravening conduct was “deliberate” and “could not be viewed as isolated”.
“The contraventions were serious. They were committed against young and vulnerable employees,” Judge Egan said. “The penalties imposed reflect the need for employers, and the persons controlling the employers, to recognise that the provisions of the [Fair Work Act] relating to the payment of employees must be obeyed.”
The company back-paid the two apprentices when the court proceedings were initiated.
