The Fair Work Ombudsman has secured $22,536 in penalties in court against the operators of an adult retail store in Melbourne.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court imposed a $18,780 penalty against Sempha Solutions Pty Ltd, which operates La La Land in Brunswick, and a $3,756 penalty against the company's sole director, Simon Paul Herman.
The penalties were imposed in response to Sempha Solutions breaching the Fair Work Act by failing to comply with a Compliance Notice requiring it to calculate and back-pay any minimum wages, overtime entitlements and penalty rates owing to a young worker it employed as a store manager on a casual basis between September 2022 and April 2023.
The worker was then aged 22 to 23.
Mr Herman was involved in the contravention.
In addition to the penalties, the Court ordered Sempha Solutions to comply with the Compliance Notice, including calculating and rectifying any underpayments, plus superannuation.
Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth said companies that failed to act on Compliance Notices needed to be aware they could 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," Ms Booth said.
"Employers also need to be aware that taking action to protect young workers is among our top priorities.
"Any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact us for free advice and assistance."
The Fair Work Ombudsman investigated after receiving a request for assistance from the affected worker.
A Fair Work Inspector issued a Compliance Notice to Sempha Solutions in October 2023 after forming a belief the worker was underpaid minimum wages, overtime entitlements and penalty rates owed under the General Retail Industry Award 2020.
In her judgment, Judge Amanda Mansini found the company's failure to comply with the notice was serious, and said such conduct undermined the Act's enforcement framework and the safety net entitlements it was designed to protect.
Judge Mansini found there was a need to impose penalties to demonstrate that non-compliance with Compliance Notices was not acceptable and to deter the company and other employers from similar contraventions in the future.
"There is a need for general deterrence in this matter, to emphasise the importance of an effective compliance framework and at a sufficient level to impress upon other employers, particularly in the retail industry, the importance of complying with the legal obligations owed to their employees," Judge Mansini said.
