The Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed a total $24,000 in penalties against the operators of a Melbourne fast food outlet.
A, $20,000 penalty was imposed against Big Daddy’s Pty Ltd, which operates Alf’s Café at the Alfred Hospital, for failing to comply with two Compliance Notices requiring it to back-pay entitlements owed to two former fast food workers. And the company’s sole director Elias Dannaoui was fined $4000 for his involvement in the contraventions.
In addition to the penalties, the Court has ordered Big Daddy’s Pty Ltd to fully comply with the Compliance Notices by calculating and back-paying superannuation and paying interest on the entitlements the employees were denied.
The verdict is a culmination of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s efforts which began with an investigation after receiving requests for assistance from the two workers, a married couple who are visa holder workers from Colombia who had been employed between 2017 and 2020.
A Fair Work Inspector issued Compliance Notices to Big Daddy’s Pty Ltd in March 2021 after having confirmed that the workers were underpaid of their due minimum casual wages and penalty rates for weekend and public holiday work under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010.
It was not until August 2022 that the company made payments of $12,090.65 for one worker and $8,742.10 for the other.
Acting Fair Work Ombudsman Kristen Hannah said business operators that fail to act on Compliance Notices face court-imposed penalties on top of having to back-pay workers.
“When Compliance Notices are not followed, we are prepared to take legal action to ensure workers receive their lawful entitlements,” Hannah said. “Employers also need to be aware that protecting vulnerable workers such as visa holders and improving compliance in the fast food, restaurant and café sector continue to be FWO priorities. Any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact us for free advice and assistance.”
Judge Natasha Laing noted that Dannaoui’s Counsel, on his behalf, “…quite rightly conceded that the breaches were deliberate insofar as the respondents were aware of the Compliance Notices and failed to respond appropriately.”
Judge Laing also said in imposing the penalties, “The failure to comply with a statutory notice is serious. The efficacy of statutory notices would be hindered or made redundant if the recipients perceive that failure to comply will not carry meaningful consequences.”
“Compliance with the notices in this matter, to the extent that it occurred, only occurred after considerable delay and difficulty, and after proceedings had been commenced,” Judge Laing concluded.
