‘Worked for nothing’: FWO finds that deaf apprentice was denied wages

An Adelaide-based vehicle services and repair business has been penalised for failing to back pay wages to a deaf worker.

Editor’s note: This story first appeared on HR Leader’s sister brand, Accountants Daily.

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has secured a penalty against an Adelaide mechanic for disadvantaging an apprentice by not back paying wages.

The penalty of $7,042.50 was imposed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court against Brian Thomas Rundle, owner of Porkys Garage in Pooraka, Adelaide.

According to the FWO, Rundle was penalised after he failed to comply with a compliance notice first issued in September 2023.

The notice ignored by Rundle required him to calculate and back pay entitlements he owed to a deaf adult apprentice he employed at his businesses between September 2022 and March 2023.

FWO Anna Booth said this acted as a warning for all sole traders and business operators that those who fail to act on compliance notices could face penalties in court, as well as having to back pay their workers.

“When compliance notices are not followed, we will continue to take legal action to protect employees. Employers also need to be aware that taking action to protect employees who are vulnerable in the workplace is among our top priorities,” she said.

“Any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact the Fair Work Ombudsman for free assistance.”

The FWO investigated the case following a request from the affected worker who said that he “loved being an apprentice but had encountered difficulties in finding employment due to his deafness”.

The worker indicated to the FWO that he had made constant requests for payment of wages and he had the perception that he was being taken advantage of.

Following its investigation, the FWO commenced legal action after several attempts to assist Rundle in complying with the compliance notice issued to him had failed.

In addition to the $7,042.50 penalty, Rundle was ordered by the court to comply with the compliance notice and pay interest and superannuation on the amounts required to be paid pursuant to the notice.

Hearing the case, Judge Stewart Brown found that “to all intents and purposes, the worker worked during his period for essentially nothing” and that “he must be regarded as a vulnerable employee given his deafness and the fact that he required work to complete his apprenticeship”.

Judge Brown said Rundle needed to be penalised to deter him and other employers from committing similar behaviours in the future.

“This is not a case of some modest underpayment because of a lack of understanding of the complexity of the applicable modern award or some other example of inadvertence,” he said.

“In simple terms, the worker did not receive his wages notwithstanding his request that he be paid under Mr Rundle’s clear appreciation that he should be paid.”

“At the present time, just over two years after ceasing employment of Mr Rundle and the compliance notice being issued, these due wages are still outstanding. In these circumstances, the matter must be regarded as being of a serious nature.”