A Sydney wedding dress business has been slapped with $51,604 in penalty and back-pay orders following an investigation by the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed a $30,000 penalty against 10 Foster Street Pty Ltd (formerly known as ‘George Elsissa Pty Ltd’), which operated a design studio and bridal store in Leichhardt, in Sydney’s inner-west.
The penalty was imposed in response to 10 Foster Street failing to comply with a Compliance Notice requiring it to calculate and back-pay entitlements owing to four workers it employed for various periods between June 2015 and September 2021.
Two of the employees were young workers, aged 23 to 25 years at the time of their employment.
The court has also ordered the company to back-pay the workers $21,604 still owed to them under the Compliance Notice, plus superannuation and interest.
Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth said employers that fail to act on Compliance Notices need to be aware they can face substantial penalties in court on top of having to back-pay workers.
“When Compliance Notices are not followed, we will continue to take legal action to protect employees. Employers who fail to act on these notices risk significant penalties and back-pay orders,” 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 FWO investigated after receiving requests for assistance from the affected workers, who were engaged in full-time and part-time roles.
One worker was engaged in an administration and marketing position while the others were in design roles including a pattern maker, draper and design-and-sales assistant.
A Fair Work Inspector issued a Compliance Notice to 10 Foster Street in May 2022 after forming a belief the workers were not paid accrued but untaken annual leave entitlements at the end of their employment, owed under the General Retail Industry Award 2020 and the Fair Work Act’s National Employment Standards.
The inspector formed a belief that one of the workers was also not paid payment-in-lieu-of-notice-of-termination entitlements when her employment ended.