Login
iscover
Nearly $18,000 in court penalties have been secured against the operators of a Western Australian real estate and business brokering company due to its “conscious decision” not to cooperate with the Fair Work Ombudsman.
According to a statement from the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed $14,985 in penalties against Joondanna-based Darrell Crouch & Associates Pty Ltd, and a $2,997 penalty against Darrell Crouch, the company’s managing director.
The ombudsman reported that the penalties were in response to Darrell Crouch & Associates’ failure to comply with a compliance notice. That compliance notice required the business to provide back-pay entitlements to a full-time property manager who had been employed at the company between August 2016 and February 2019.
The ombudsman stated that Mr Crouch was involved in the contravention, with the company only providing full backpay to the worker following on from the commencement of legal action.
Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker has stressed that business operators that fail to act on compliance notices “need to be aware they can face court-imposed penalties on top of having to back-pay workers.”
She explained that “when compliance notices are not followed, we are prepared to take legal action to ensure workers receive their lawful entitlements.”
“We have no tolerance for employers who deliberately breach workplace laws, as occurred in this case.”
It was reported that the ombudsman commenced an investigation after receiving a request for assistance from the affected property management.
Then, a compliance notice was issued in January 2021 when a Fair Work inspector formed a belief that the worker was not paid payment-in-lieu-of-notice-of-termination entitlements when his employment with the company ended in 2019.
Such entitlements are owed under the Fair Work Act’s National Employment Standards.
With the matter then before the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court, Judge Antoni Lucev found that there was a need for specific and general deterrence in this particular case.
According to Judge Lucev, “there can be ‘no doubt’ the conduct was ‘deliberate’” and that “the respondents paid little heed to the compliance notice.”
Judge Lucev said Mr Crouch only “glanced at it”, and regarded it as a “mere nuisance” — quoting Mr Crouch’s own words as to the attitude taken to the investigation.
“The respondents made a conscious decision, from a very early stage in their contact with the FWO, not to cooperate with any investigation, and subsequently not to comply with the compliance notice, and did not alter this position for more than four months,” Judge Lucev said.
Judge Lucev was also critical of Mr Crouch’s submission to the Court that there should be no penalty imposed or a nominal penalty of $1.
In handing down his penalty, he called Mr Crouch’s request “one of the most extraordinary submissions” the Court has heard in relation to the amount of a penalty.
“There may be cases where no penalty, or a nominal penalty, is appropriate, but those cases will be extraordinarily rare.”
“This is not such a case, and the respondents’ submissions are suggestive of a failure to appreciate the gravity of the respondents’ conduct in this matter,” Judge Lucev concluded.
Ms Parker concluded with the advice that “any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact us for free advice and assistance.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Grace Ormsby
Grace is a journalist across Momentum property and investment brands. Grace joined Momentum Media in 2018, bringing with her a Bachelor of Laws and a Bachelor of Communication (Journalism) from the University of Newcastle. She’s passionate about delivering easy to digest information and content relevant to her key audiences and stakeholders.
You are not authorised to post comments.
Comments will undergo moderation before they get published.