Pay and conditions page 38 of 39

389 articles are classified in All Articles > Compliance > Pay and conditions


Fat fine for company that underpaid on-call workers $2.5m

The Federal Court has fined a company almost $200,000 for underpaying its aged care workers more than $2.5m over a five year period, finding that its unlawful employment practices might have given it an unfair competitive advantage.

Director liable for underpayment: Court

The Federal Circuit Court has found the sole director of a delicatessen/cafe accessorily liable in an underpayment case spanning more than 30 years and four periods of industrial law.

Judge sends warning to hair and beauty industry with big fines

A long history of employee complaints and the need to send a strong message to the hair and beauty industry that "it does not pay to underpay workers" has led to a hairdressing chain being fined $70,000 for short-changing an apprentice more than $8,000.


Coles enters ground-breaking deal for trolley collectors

Supermarket giant Coles will conduct random wage audits of its trolley collection contractors, back pay 10 employees more than $220,000 and establish a $500,000 fund for any future underpayment claims, as part of an agreement with the Fair Work Ombudsman that acknowledges the company's "ethical and moral responsibility" to look after workers on its sites.



Serial fraudster pockets nearly half a million

In what four judges agree is an "extraordinary case" involving a "spectacularly bad witness" and a "serial fraudster", a Swan Hill shop assistant will keep almost half a million dollars in back pay and interest after a full Federal Court confirmed that she had not agreed to work for nothing.

Rewarding workers with Coke and pizza belongs in dark ages: Court

Giving teenage employees free and discounted pizzas and soft drink instead of wages – a practice belonging "in the dark ages rather than twenty first century Australia" – has cost a pizza franchise operator $335,000 in fines.

Employer pays for "naive and unacceptable" interpretation of employment contract

A finance broking house that issued a Brisbane-based employee five payslips in six years and employed him on a commission-based agreement that it believed did not entitle him to base salary, sick pay, annual leave and superannuation entitlements has been ordered to pay him almost $124,000 in penalties.