Federal Court confirms advisors liable when their clients breach the Fair Work Act

This case1 confirmed that advisors can be legally liable when their clients breach the Fair Work Act.

In April 2017, the Federal Circuit Court handed down a decision2 declaring that a restaurant had underpaid its workers in relation to the applicable award. The Court also declared that the restaurant’s accountant, Ezy Accounting 123 Pty Ltd (EZY), was an accessory to the restaurant’s contraventions of the award. EZY was ordered to pay a penalty of $53,8803.

EZY appealed the decision and in August this year, the Federal Court handed down its decision, upholding the decision of the Federal Circuit Court that EZY was an accessory to its client’s breaches of the award.

In the first instance case brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO), the restaurant admitted underpaying its employees. The FWO also alleged that EZY, which had provided payroll services to the restaurant, was involved in the underpayments as an accessory. EZY did not admit its part in the underpayments and defended the case.

Under the Fair Work Act4, a person (including a company) that is found to be an accessory to another party’s breach of an award (and other breaches of the Fair Work Act), can be penalised as if they had themselves committed the breach.

In the appeal, EZY claimed it was not an accessory because it didn’t have the requisite knowledge of the contraventions to make it liable submitting it was just following its client’s instructions.

The Federal Court disagreed, finding that EZY did have the relevant knowledge because EZY, through its director:

  • knew that the employees were covered by the modern award that provided for a base rate of pay for ordinary hours of work and for penalty rates and allowances
  • knew that the restaurant was underpaying its employees because it knew the rates in the payroll system – that EZY ran for the restaurant – were not sufficient to meet the requirements of the award and therefore
  • knew the employees were being underpaid.

As well as EZY’s knowledge of the contravention there was a practical connection between EZY and the conduct of the restaurant because EZY had facilitated the underpayments by processing the restaurant’s payroll.

As with previous cases, (including one where an HR manager was found liable for her employer’s award breach), this case reinforces that the FWO will take a broad view of whom is responsible for ensuring employees receive their minimum entitlements.

Those who advise employers, including HR professionals, accountants and legal advisors should keep their potential personal exposure in mind and act accordingly when advising about minimum legal obligations.

1EZY Accounting 123 Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2018] FCAFC 134
2Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Impression Pty Ltd & Ors [2017] FCCA
3In the appeal, the penalty was reduced to $51,330.
4Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), section 550


Fay Calderone

A highly regarded employment lawyer, Fay advises on proactive compliance, discrimination and performance management.

Ilona Strong

Ilona focuses on both statutory and common law claims across both Victorian and Tasmanian workcover legislation.

You might be also interested in...

Employment & Workplace Relations | 29 Aug 2018

Thought there were no annual leave entitlements for casuals? Think again

In a case likely to ring alarm bells for employers, the Full Court of the Federal Court was required to determine in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018]1 whether an employee of a labour hire company who the employer claimed was engaged and paid as a casual was entitled to annual leave entitlements under section 86 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) upon the termination of his employment.

Employment & Workplace Relations | 21 Aug 2018

Enterprise agreement approvals – how long is seven days?

Recent Fair Work Commission decisions have confirmed that employers must meet strict technical requirements before enterprise agreements will be approved.