The Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed a $15,125 penalty against Aisha & Umma Enterprises Pty Ltd, which formerly traded as RMB Café in the Melbourne CBD, for failing to comply with a Compliance Notice requiring it to calculate underpayments and back-pay 13 workers.
In addition to the penalties, the court also ordered Aisha & Umma Enterprises to pay the workers a total of $27,516 that remains owing, plus superannuation and interest.
Aisha & Umma Enterprises was first found to have been underpaying the workers during the 2018-19 Melbourne food precincts audits conducted by the Fair Work Ombudsman. It has been further revealed that the underpayments occurred during various periods between May 2017 and August 2019.
A Fair Work inspector issued the Compliance Notice in June 2020 in response to the underpayments which not only involved the 13 affected workers’ minimum wages, but also penalty rates for weekend and public holiday work under the Restaurant Industry Award 2010.
The Compliance Notice required a total payment of $36,479 to the employees but the company only made only partial back-payment, which necessitated the court action.
Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said 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.
“When Compliance Notices are not followed, we are prepared to take legal action to ensure workers receive their lawful entitlements,” Parker said. “Employers also need to be aware that taking action to improve compliance in the fast food, restaurant and café sector is an enduring priority for the FWO.”
In imposing the penalty, Judge Catherine Symons noted that four of the workers are still owed more than $4000 each and that workers had been “deprived of not insubstantial amounts of money over a lengthy period”.
Judge Symons found that failing to comply with a Compliance Notice was “a mischief to which general deterrence can and should appropriately be directed”.
“I also accept that there is some evidence that supports a greater need for general deterrence when the case is one that concerns a business that operates (or operated) in the café and restaurant industry,” the judge stated in her decision.
