August 8

Maximum Penalty for Defiant Employer – A Call for Compliance Reform

Maximum Penalty for Defiant Employer – A Wake-Up Call for Compliance Reform

The ‘Bad’ in ‘the Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ from our 8 August 2025 podcast on Restraint of Trade, part 2.

In a landmark decision that underscores the importance of compliance in employment law, the Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed the maximum penalty available on an employer for failing to comply with a Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) issued compliance notice. The ruling, delivered by Judge Sandy Street, highlights the court’s growing frustration with repeated non-compliance and calls for urgent legislative reform.

The case originated from a 2023 compliance notice issued by the FWO, which found that the Company had underpaid a worker against his award entitlements. The notice required the company to rectify underpayments from April 2020 to August 2022. Despite this, the company failed to comply and continued operating as usual, even advertising new roles in April 2025.

The FWO proposed a penalty of 75% – 85% of the maximum available, but ultimately Judge Street rejected this proposal, instead opting for the full amount possible due to the employer’s “deliberate and defiant refusal” to engage in the process. A particularly inflammatory email from the company’s sole director to the FWO warned that pursuing the matter could lead to a class action lawsuit and suggested it would be embarrassing for several government officials. Judge Street described the email as “defiant and sarcastic,” reflecting a clear intent to disregard legal obligations.

The Judge emphasised that section 716 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which empowers the FWO to issue compliance notices, is a core provision of the FWO’s enforcement powers. He noted that the company’s refusal to participate in proceedings and failure to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance prevented the court from calculating the exact underpayment amount. This, combined with the continued operation of the business and the role of senior management in the contravention, justified the maximum penalty.

Just days before this ruling, Judge Street had called for reforms increasing penalties for non-compliance and to empower the FWO to seek the removal of directors who repeatedly flout employment laws. This case serves as a powerful example of why such reforms may be necessary.

For employers, and legal representatives, this decision is a reminder of the consequences of ignoring compliance notices and the importance of engaging constructively with regulatory bodies. It also signals a potential shift toward harsher penalties and broader enforcement powers for the FWO, especially in cases involving deliberate defiance.

As the legal landscape evolves, practitioners should watch closely for legislative changes that may arise from Judge Street’s recommendations.

Fair Work Ombudsman v My IT Partner Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1121

February 28

Employment Underpayments – How to Assess and Address

Published 28 February 2020

With a focus on employee underpayments from recent media scandals, in this month’s newsletter, we take a look at some of the issues with underpayments and what you should be aware of to stay payroll compliant.

Given recent underpayment scandals, it is clear that payroll compliance is going to be a key focus area for the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and the Federal Government in 2020. Employers who do not review their payroll systems and practices risk facing significant penalties because of non-compliance with their payroll obligations.

Underpayment and payroll compliance scandals involving large, well-known companies in Australia have dominated news headlines recently. In August 2019, news broke that celebrity chef George Calombaris underpaid workers in his MAdE Establishment Group by $7.8 million between 2011 and 2017. In October 2019, Wesfarmers self-reported “errors in the payment of team members” of an estimated $15 million. This month has seen Coles admit to underpaying its employees by $20 million and Target admitting to underpaying its salary staff by $9 million. Perhaps the biggest underpayment headline was the news in late October 2019 that Woolworths had underpaid thousands of its workers by as much as $300 million.

Following these recent scandals, and the public backlash that followed the $200,000 contrition payment made by George Calombaris in August 2019, the FWO has come out and said that businesses self-reporting underpayments will not be given any leniency and that “admission is not absolution”. After Wesfarmers self-reported underpayments of nearly $15 million, the FWO released a statement saying:

The Fair Work Ombudsman will be holding Wesfarmers to account after self-disclosing significant underpayments of its workers. Each week, another large company is publicly admitting that they failed to ensure staff are receiving their lawful entitlements. This simply is not good enough. Companies will be held accountable for breaching workplace laws. Companies and their Boards are on notice that we will consider the full range of enforcement options available under the Fair Work Act, including litigation where appropriate.

Further to this, there has also been a political focus on employment underpayments. Earlier in November 2019, the Senate approved an inquiry into wage and superannuation theft. The Federal Government has also previously flagged that it was considering introducing criminal sanctions for deliberate and systematic wage theft. Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter has this month said that he would introduce legislation to criminalise the worst cases of underpayment and employee exploitation.

With payroll compliance going to be a key focus of the FWO and the Federal Government in 2020, now is a critical time for employers to ensure that they are complying with all of their payroll obligations. Employers should undertake regular reviews of their employment contracts and industrial instruments to ensure they are meeting their obligations.

Some issues that are common to most instances of payroll non-compliance that employers should look out for are:

  • applying the wrong Modern Award to employees;
  • incorrectly classifying employees as Modern Award free;
  • misclassifying employees under a Modern Award or Enterprise Agreement;
  • utilising annualised salaries that are not sufficient to cover all entitlements arising under the award, especially over time where they do not keep up with increased award rates;
  • incorrectly calculating overtime and penalty rates; and
  • poor time and recording keeping.

It can be daunting for employers to know where to start with their compliance obligations, particularly in the interpretation and calculation of award entitlements. Working Knowledge has significant experience in payroll auditing services, and as mentioned in last month’s newsletter, due to the current demand for these services we have launched a new payroll reconciliation and audit system called Awaudit Payroll Compliance Calculator (Awaudit), making Working Knowledge a cost effective solution.

This system conducts an audit of payroll data to determine any underpayments and rectification if required, and as part of the audit process, Working Knowledge considers;

  • the appropriate Modern Award or Enterprise Agreement;
  • employee classification under the Modern Award or Enterprise Agreement;
  • the applicable ordinary hours, penalty rates, overtime rates and allowances; and
  • any annualised salary arrangements or flexibility agreements.

Once the audit is completed, it is reviewed to ensure that it is accurate and complies with the appropriate Modern Award or Enterprise Agreement.

For more information about Awaudit Payroll Compliance Calculator, please visit the website or call our office on 02 8436 2500.


This content is general in nature and provides a summary of the issues covered. It is not intended to be, nor should it be relied upon, as legal or professional advice for specific employment situations.

Working Knowledge recommends that specialist legal advice should be sought about specific legal issues.