Australia’s workplace watchdog secured AUD 124,275 (USD 83,486) in penalties in court against the former operators of a café in Sydney for underpaying casual workers.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court imposed a total of AUD 99,900 (USD 66,928) in penalties against More Than Skin Pty Ltd, which operated The Noshery café in Glebe, and a total of AUD 20,379.60 (USD 13,653.5) in penalties against Lila Stojcevski and an AUD 3,996 (USD 2,677.15) penalty against her brother Lupo Stojcevski, who were co-directors of the company.

The penalties were imposed in response to More Than Skin failing to comply with three compliance notices requiring it to calculate and back-pay entitlements to three workers it employed at the café for various periods between September and December 2020, and for breaching pay slip laws.

The workers included two international students and a working holiday visa holder and were engaged in kitchen and waitstaff roles.

Australia’s Fair Work Ombudsman investigated after receiving requests for assistance from the affected workers. A Fair Work Inspector issued the compliance notices to the company between March and May 2021 after forming a belief the workers had not been paid their minimum casual wage entitlements, and casual penalty entitlements for weekend and public holiday work, owed under the Restaurant Industry Award 2020.

The company also failed to provide pay slips to two of the workers.

Ms Stojcevski was involved in the breach of two compliance notices and the failure to provide pay slips, and Mr Stojcevski was involved in the breach of one of the compliance notices. In addition to the penalties, the court has ordered More Than Skin to back-pay the workers in full, plus superannuation and interest.

In her judgment, Judge Sophie Given found that the company and individual respondents had shown no contrition nor taken any responsibility for their conduct, and that Ms Stojcevski was ‘deliberately uncooperative’ during her dealings with the FWO.

Judge Given also found that the contraventions could only be described as ‘deliberate’ and ‘not the result of oversight or any other mistake.’

“The failure to comply with the compliance notices and to issue payslips was done in conscious disregard for the company's obligations as an employer and that the involvement of the individual respondents was equally deliberate and indifferent despite those obligations,” Judge Given said.

Judge Given noted that the workers had still not been paid more than two years after the compliance notices were issued, and that there was a need to impose ‘substantial’ penalties that would deter the company, Ms Stojcevski, Mr Stojcevski and others from similar future conduct.