Employment Law update: Fair Work Ombudsman v J.D. Chapen Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FedCFamC2G 85
A recent employment law matter in the Federal Circuit and Family Court saw the Fair Work Ombudsman rely on the accessorial liability provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to bring claims against the individuals (a former director, general manager and accountant) as well as the employing entity involved in contraventions of the Act.
The matter involved the determination of penalties for those involved in breaches of the Act by a group of companies referred to in Riley J’s decision as the “La La entities”. The La La entities underwent surprise audits in August 2019 after allegations that they were underpaying workers, denying workplace entitlements and paying workers cash-in-hand.
Prior to proceedings being commenced, the La La entities all entered liquidation and so no penalties were sought against any of the companies. Instead, the Ombudsman sought penalties directly against individuals involved in the contraventions, being a former director/shareholder of a number of La La entity companies (Mr Taiaroa), a former general manager of a number of La La entity companies (Mr Sanger), an accounting firm which provided accounting services to the La La entities (Nicholas Accounting Managers Services Pty Ltd) and the sole director of the accounting firm (Mr Nicolaou).
During the proceedings all parties reached separate agreements with the Ombudsman and admitted liability to breaches of the Act, so Riley J’s decision was limited to the applicable penalties.
The Ombudsman relied on section 550 of the Fair Work Act, which allows for it to pursue anyone directly involved in contraventions of the Act. Being “involved in” a contravention occurs if a person has:
As was the case in this matter, these provisions are often used when the employing entity has gone into liquidation to allow the Ombudsman to pursue individuals (although the provisions are not limited to such a scenario).
Mr Taiaroa and Mr Sanger both admitted to a failure to maintain records of hours worked by casual or irregular part-time employees and for failing to keep records of their entitlements to loadings, allowances or penalty rates. In determining the penalties, the court noted that the failure to maintain records was deliberate1. However, discounts were applied in accordance with the totality principal (this reduces penalties when there is a significant overlap in the conduct that caused the contraventions2) and in acknowledgment that both parties had admitted liability.
As such, Mr Taiaroa was ordered to pay a penalty of $41,368.00 and Mr Sanger a penalty of $26,893.00.
Nicholas Accounting Managers Services Pty Ltd and Mr Nicolaou admitted to a failure to comply with a written notice to produce issued and served by the Ombudsman to produce various documents and information in relation to its investigation into the La La entities. In determining their penalties, the court made mention of specific deterrence given both the company and Mr Nicolaou were still operating.
As such, Nicholas Accounting Managers Services Pty Ltd was ordered to pay a penalty of $34,020 and Mr Nicolaou a penalty of $35,154.00.
It is important that employers understand their obligations to comply with the Fair Work Act and note that the Ombudsman can pursue individuals involved with any contraventions.
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Argument for expanding contingency fee arrangements beyond class actions to all civil litigation in Victoria, examining the benefits for clients and proper regulatory frameworks needed for implementation.
Critical information about new 28-day time limits for VCAT appeals under the Building Legislation Amendment (Buyer Protection) Act for rectification orders and first resort insurance decisions effective July 2026.
Guidance on maintaining proper boundaries between clients and expert witnesses in building, property and insurance litigation to protect legal privilege, independence and case success.
Comparison of building law duty of care obligations between Victoria and NSW, examining how subsequent homeowners' rights to sue building professionals differ dramatically between Melbourne and Sydney.