The Fair Work Ombudsman has secured a total of $21,890 in penalties in court against the operators of an eyebrow shaping business in eastern Sydney.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court has imposed a $20,000 penalty against Get Plucked Holdings Pty Ltd, a Woollahra-based business trading as ‘Sharon Lee Inc. Eyebrow Atelier’, and $1,890 in penalties against Get Plucked Holdings’ sole director, Sharon Lee Hamilton-Clarke.
The penalties were imposed in response to Get Plucked Holdings failing to comply with two Compliance Notices, issued in 2019 and 2021 respectively, requiring it to calculate and back-pay entitlements to two workers. Ms Hamilton-Clarke was involved in the failure to comply with the Compliance Notice issued in 2019.
Get Plucked Holdings back-paid the workers only after the FWO commenced legal action.
Fair Work Ombudsman Sandra Parker said business operators that fail to act on Compliance Notices need to be aware they can face penalties in court 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 Parker said.
“Any employees with concerns about their pay or entitlements should contact us for free advice and assistance.”
The FWO started its investigatation after receiving requests for assistance from the affected workers.
A Fair Work Inspector issued a Compliance Notice to Get Plucked Holdings in December 2019 after forming a belief it had underpaid a receptionist employed from August to September 2019, her minimum wages and annual leave entitlements, under the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010.
An Inspector issued a second Compliance Notice to Get Plucked Holdings in February 2021 after forming a belief it underpaid a beauty therapist employed from September 2019 to March 2020, her minimum wages, annual leave entitlements and payment-in-lieu-of-notice-of-termination entitlements, under the same award.
Judge Sandy Street found that the failure to comply with the Compliance Notices was intentional and there was a need to impose penalties at the appropriate amount to deter similar conduct in future.
“The Court finds that there is the need in the present case for specific deterrence in respect of both respondents and that general deterrence is of particular importance in this hairdressing and beauty service industry,” Judge Street said.
