Woolies’ $230k penalty for Fair Work violations

Woolworths was ordered to pay over $230,000 for breaching the Fair Work Act in its treatment of three store employees.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) made several declarations, by consent position, that Woolworths contravened the Fair Work Act with respect to three part-time employees of its Victoria Park, Perth store.

The major supermarket was ordered to make two payments of $69,500 and one payment of $94,250 to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which prepared the proceedings.

One of the three employees claimed he was not provided with his contract hours of 24 hours in a number of weeks, and there had been a change to his contract hours without his consent.

The first employee also contended there were two instances of money being deducted from his payslips, but Woolworths submitted this was to account for a change in his position from manager to part-time.

The second employee alleged he did not have a standard roster for a period and was not provided his contracted 10-hour work a week.

This employee added that he worked additional hours without consent and was not paid for this extra time for a period. In a separate decision, the court made a $1,000 compensation order.

The third employee, whose matter drew the biggest penalty, said he did not have a standard roster for some time, did not receive his contracted 10-hour work on 11 occasions, and had worked additional and uncompensated hours without his consent.

The supermarket was said to have also made changes to this third employee’s standard roster on four occasions, in a manner inconsistent with the Woolworths Australian Food Group Agreement.

The court also ordered compensation in the sum of $1,144.86.

The union asked the FCFCOA for penalties that were of a far higher sum, with its representative submitting that they would incentivise applicants and make contraveners less likely to break the law.

While the court accepted the employees were entitled to expect Woolworths would have systems in place to ensure compliance with its agreement, it also took into account Woolworths’ significant admissions and its swift approach to the contraventions.

The conduct was also not deliberate, it did not concern senior management, and Woolworths had formed a working group with the objective of ensuring standard rosters were made available as soon as new permanent staff members started work.