The Fair Work Ombudsman has secured a total of $66,339 in penalties in court against the former operators of a Vietnamese restaurant in Melbourne.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed a penalty of $58,684.50 against House Hoi An Pty Ltd, which formerly operated a Vietnamese restaurant trading as ‘House of Hoi An’ in Prahran, and a $7,654.50 penalty against company director Keerthi Hapugasdeniya.
The penalties were imposed in response to House Hoi An Pty Ltd failing to comply with a Compliance Notice requiring the back-payment of entitlements to three visa holders – two from Vietnam and one from Sri Lanka. The company also breached record-keeping and payslip laws.
Mr Hapugasdeniya was involved in the compliance notice and payslip breaches.
House Hoi An Pty Ltd back-paid some of the workers’ entitlements, however the Court has ordered the company to fully comply with the Compliance Notice including by back-paying the workers’ superannuation entitlements.
Acting Fair Work Ombudsman Kristen Hannah 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,” Ms Hannah said.
“Employers also need to be aware that taking action to improve compliance in the fast food, restaurant and café sector continues to be a priority for the FWO. Any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact us for free advice and assistance.”
The regulator investigated after receiving requests for assistance from employees who had worked at House of Hoi An.
A Fair Work Inspector issued a Compliance Notice in October 2019 after forming a belief that the company had underpaid three workers – two cooks and one food and beverage attendant – their entitlements under the Restaurant Industry Award 2010 and ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Employment Standards.
Judge Heather Riley found that the failure to comply with the Compliance Notice was deliberate and there was a need to impose penalties that would deter House of Hoi An, Mr Hapugasdeniya and others.
“I consider that it is appropriate that general deterrence be given significant weight in this matter. I also consider that specific deterrence should be given significant weight,” Judge Riley said.
“Although (House of Hoi An) might not be trading at present, it has not been put into liquidation. Similarly, although (Mr Hapugasdeniya) might have no employees at present, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will have employees in the future. The need for specific deterrence is particularly great, given the absence of any evidence of contrition on the respondents’ parts.”
