Resources: Blogs

Working hard for the money

Blogs
|

FWO sends out warnings about payment and pay methods

The FWO has stressed that workers (i.e. labour hire and employees) must be paid the correct wage in accordance with the Horticulture Award. It is likely that the FWO will be closely monitoring the horticulture industry (and other industries where visa holders are predominately employed) given the high incidences of exploitation that have recently been reported in the media.

As harvest season is fast approaching, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has reminded growers that they need to be familiar with their obligations under the Horticulture Award 2010 (Horticulture Award). The reminder has been issued in response to claims that labour hire contractors are approaching growers and offering workers at very low rates of pay.

The FWO has stressed that workers (i.e. labour hire and employees) must be paid the correct wage in accordance with the Horticulture Award. It is likely that the FWO will be closely monitoring the horticulture industry (and other industries where visa holders are predominately employed) given the high incidences of exploitation that have recently been reported in the media.

The attraction to “picking” is common amongst backpackers and short stay visa holders (who usually have no right to work in Australia) because they receive “cash in the hand” or free food and accommodation in exchange for work whilst enjoying their stay in Australia. The practice of paying “cash in hand” without keeping any records (or deducting any tax) or “paying” employees with food and accommodation is illegal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and applicable immigration and taxation laws.

In 2014, the FWO conducted six “unannounced visits” to farms and found that 2 employers had underpaid 22 employees. The FWO also found 4 employers had record keeping and pay slip contraventions. Given this latest media release from the FWO, employers in the horticulture industry should make sure they are prepared for an unannounced visit by the FWO.

The arrangement of working “for food and/or accommodation” is not exclusive to the horticulture industry. In 2015, a large poultry processing employer was found to have underpaid its employees, forced them to work extremely long hours and required them to pay high rents for overcrowded and unsafe accommodation.

Employers have an obligation under the FW Act to pay an employee “in relation to the performance of work” in money whether it be by cash, cheque, money order or EFT. To clarify, employees who are on the books can be paid in “cash”; however, they must still be issued payslips and paid in accordance with the applicable modern award. Employers are strongly reminded that it is a breach of the FW Act to “pay” an employee wholly in food and/or accommodation or other creative means.

Employers should seek legal advice if they are uncertain of their obligations with respect to payments and/or deductions where employees are required to live on an employer’s premises or in employer provided accommodation.

 

Similar articles

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more...

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

Read more...

Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.

Read more...

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

Read more...

How pre-employment checks minimise the risk of post-recruitment discoveries

Skeletons in the closet

You have hired an employee who appears to be perfect on paper, only to later discover that they have misrepresented or deliberately withheld information about their qualifications, employment history or problematic past. A simple and often overlooked way of mitigating unfortunate surprises like these is conducting pre-employment checks to verify whether a candidate is as suitable, qualified and impressive as their resume or interview has portrayed them to be.

Read more...

Employer did not force an employee to resign by enforcing its hybrid working arrangement

A direction you can’t resist

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 lockdowns have changed the way in which most businesses work. While working remotely has provided employers and employees with flexibility, many employers have now started directing employees to return to the workplace either full-time or under hybrid working arrangements.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.