2026 WAIRC 00526
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA


CITATION
:
2026 WAIRC 00526



CORAM
:
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE D. SCADDAN



HEARD
:
THURSDAY, 4 JUNE 2026



DELIVERED
:
FRIDAY, 17 JULY 2026



FILE NO.
:
M 175 OF 2025



BETWEEN
:
LAWRENCE SPECA


CLAIMANT





AND





JILLIAN DIXON – INDUSTRIAL INSPECTOR


RESPONDENT

CatchWords : INDUSTRIAL LAW – Review of a compliance notice pursuant to s 84U(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) – Contraventions of Motor Vehicle (Service Station, Sales Establishments, Rust Prevention and Paint Protection), Industry Award No. 29 of 1980 – Underpayment for hours worked and incorrect award classification – Principles applied in undertaking a review under s 84U(1) – Onus of proof – Notice confirmed
Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Industrial Magistrate’s Court (General Jurisdiction) Regulations 2005 (WA)
Instrument : Motor Vehicle (Service Station, Sales Establishments, Rust Prevention and Paint Protection), Industry Award No. 29 of 1980
Cases referred
to in reasons: : Hindu Society of Victoria (Australia) Inc v Fair Work Ombudsman [2016] FCCA 221; (2016) 304 FLR 264
Hana Express Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2020] FCCA 54; (2020) 350 FLR 359
Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] WASC 27
Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] FCA 30; (2002) 66 ALD 579
Federate Clerks’ Union of Australia Industrial Union of Workers, WA Branch v Cary (1977) 57 WAIG 585
Doropoulos v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, Industrial Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch (1989) 69 WAIG 1290
Result : Application dismissed. Third Compliance Notice confirmed.
Representation:
Claimant : Self-represented
Respondent : Ms S. Walsh (of counsel)



REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1 Lawrence Speca (the claimant) has lodged an originating claim applying for the Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia (the Court) to review and cancel a compliance notice dated 21 November 2025 (the Third Compliance Notice) issued by an Industrial Inspector of the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety (Department) on the basis that he did not commit the contraventions set out in the notice (the Application).
2 Pursuant to s 84U(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act), the grounds for reviewing a compliance notice are either or both that:
(a) the person has not committed a contravention set out in the notice;
(b) the notice does not comply with s 84Q of the IR Act.
3 Pursuant to s 84U(4) of the IR Act, the Court has the power to confirm, cancel or vary a compliance notice after reviewing it.
4 If the application for review is on ground (a), that the person has not committed a contravention set out in the notice, then the person has the burden of proving they did not commit the contravention. Section 84(3) of the IR Act when read with s 84(1)(a).
The requisite standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
5 Compliance notices were served on the claimant on 1 October 2025 and 4 November 2025. Despite the Application attaching a copy of the 1 October 2025 compliance notice, the parties agree that the Application relates to the Third Compliance Notice served on the claimant on 21 November 2025, which is in substantially identical terms but for the dates referred to therein.
The Third Compliance Notice
6 The Third Compliance Notice was issued by Jillian Dixon (Ms Dixon), an Industrial Inspector, following a complaint made by Aaron Pearce (Mr Pearce), who was previously employed by Lawrence Speca and Joshua Speca t/as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 38 843 372 892) and Lawrence Speca t/as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 24 409 642 685) (the businesses will be collectively referred to as LJ Auto Wholesalers).
7 In accordance with s 84P of the IR Act, the Industrial Inspector reasonably believed that the claimant (as a partner in a partnership and as a sole trader) contravened an entitlement provision of the Motor Vehicle (Service Station, Sales Establishments, Rust Prevention and Paint Protection), Industry Award No. 29 of 1980 (Award) for the period 5 April 2021 to 22 April 2022 (the Employment Period) and gave the claimant the Third Compliance Notice.
8 The contraventions of the Award identified in the Third Compliance Notice were:
Clause
Nature of the Contravention
11
Failing to pay the correct casual hourly rate of pay for all ordinary hours worked between Monday to Friday.
12
Failing to pay the correct casual hourly rate of pay for all additional hours worked.
13
Failing to pay the correct casual hourly rate of pay for all overtime hours worked.
9 As a result of the contraventions, the Industrial Inspector calculated the following underpayments owed to Mr Pearce (collectively referred to as the Underpayment):
Employer
Period of employment
Underpayment amount
Lawrence Speca and Joshua Speca t/as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 38 843 372 892)
5 April 2021
to
30 June 2021
$2,321.07
Lawrence Speca t/as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 24 409 642 685)
1 July 2021
to
22 April 2022
$17,679.42
Total:
$20,000.49
10 The grounds for the Industrial Inspector’s reasonable belief are contained in Attachment A to the Third Compliance Notice, which also included numerous spreadsheets used by the Industrial Inspector to calculate the Underpayment in detail.
11 Attached to these reasons at Schedule I is the Third Compliance Notice and the list of items relied upon by the Industrial Inspector to establish their reasonable belief of the contraventions referred to in the notice. Included in Schedule I is also two tables detailing a summary of the Underpayments, for the claimant in partnership and as a sole trader. Exhibit 3 – witness statement of Jillian Dixon signed on 1 May 2026, 407, 412.
Other calculation tables within Attachment A of the Third Compliance Notice have been omitted from Schedule I.
12 In summary, the Third Compliance Notice informed the claimant that by 16 December 2025 he was required to pay the Underpayment in full to Mr Pearce’s nominated bank account, pay the corresponding amount of superannuation to a nominated superannuation fund for the benefit of Mr Pearce and provide the Industrial Inspector with evidence of his compliance with these matters.
13 The Third Compliance Notice also informed the claimant of his rights and obligations, including the consequences of non-compliance and the option to apply for review to the Court.
14 On 18 December 2025, the claimant made the Application by lodging an originating claim with the Court. That is, the Application was made after the date for compliance.
The Application
15 The basis for the Application is that:
(a) Mr Pearce was employed by LJ Auto Wholesalers as a car cleaner for 20 hours per week or four hours per day, Monday to Friday. The hours were flexible;
(b) in the last three weeks of his employment, Mr Pearce’s hours increased to 30 hours per week, and his weekly wage increased accordingly;
(c) Mr Pearce resigned about two weeks prior to his last day of work on 22 April 2022;
(d) Mr Pearce typically arrived at 8.00 am to unlock the front gate, and he would wait until ‘one of us’ arrived, usually between 8.30 am and 9.30 am, but he did not start work until 10.00 am, after he was provided by LJ Auto Wholesalers with breakfast;
(e) Mr Pearce worked until 12.00 pm, following which he was provided with lunch by LJ Auto Wholesalers. He had a one-hour lunch break before resuming work at 2.00 pm and finished at 4.00 pm;
(f) Mr Pearce adjusted his schedule as he saw fit and to accommodate personal issues;
(g) throughout his employment, Mr Pearce was provided with free breakfast, lunch and dinner, because he could not afford three meals per day;
(h) in the final two months of his employment, Mr Pearce was offered additional work hours, but he declined because he did not want to jeopardise his government benefits;
(i) while Mr Pearce’s Google timeline may indicate that he was at work for long periods of time, he did not work continuously during those times. Mr Pearce was often using the office air-conditioning and heating, accessing the free wi-fi and playing computer games;
(j) Mr Pearce’s duties predominantly fell within Level 1 of the Award, but LJ Auto Wholesalers still paid him at the Level 2 hourly rate;
(k) Mr Pearce’s daily tasks under supervision included general labouring, cleaning yard vehicles, car washing, polishing, vacuuming, wiping glass, cleaning oil spillages, wheel cleaning, engine cleaning, checking and refilling fluids, applying tyre shine, checking and changing batteries, and starting/running vehicles;
(l) on occasion, Mr Pearce performed limited Level 2 duties, such as tyre pressure checks, wheel changes and basic vehicle servicing not requiring mechanical knowledge. In the last six months of his employment, Mr Pearce began receiving training in tyre fitting and car detailing, but he struggled to perform these tasks unsupervised and did not complete them independently. The Level 2 duties made up less than 30% of his daily workload;
(m) Mr Pearce physically struggled to complete 20 hours per week of work, but was paid for the hours he completed;
(n) at no time during his employment did Mr Pearce raise concerns about his pay or request additional payment; and
(o) Mr Pearce was paid appropriately during his employment and was never required to perform unpaid work or work more than 20 hours per week during the period referred to in the Compliance Notice. See generally, the statement attached to the Application.

Statutory Framework and the Court’s Role in the Application
16 Part III, Division 5 of the IR Act applies where an industrial inspector reasonably believes that a person has contravened or failed to comply with an entitlement provision.
17 Pursuant to s 7(1) of the IR Act, an ‘entitlement provision’ includes a provision of an award.
18 As already mentioned, the claimant has applied to cancel the Third Compliance Notice on the basis that he did not commit the contravention set out in the notice.
19 Part III, Division 5 of the IR Act was introduced by the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Act 2021 (WA) and is modelled on similar compliance notice provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). See s 717(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Therefore, federal case law may assist in the proper construction and application of s 84U of the IR Act.
20 The following relevant principles may be distilled from Hindu Society of Victoria (Australia) Inc v Fair Work Ombudsman [2016] FCCA 221; (2016) 304 FLR 264, at [29] to [35], and Hana Express Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [2020] FCCA 54; (2020) 350 FLR 359, at [54] to [56], and applied to s 84U(1) of the IR Act:
(a) the focus of an application for review of a compliance notice is whether or not a person has, in fact, committed the contravention(s) alleged, and not whether or not the industrial inspector ‘reasonably believed’ the alleged contravention(s) had occurred;
(b) the review is limited to one of the grounds set out in s 84U(1) of the IR Act, and relevant to the Application is that the claimant did not commit the contravention(s) set out in the Third Compliance Notice;
(c) the Court is not tasked with undertaking a broad review by reference to the word ‘review’ in s 84U(1), which must be read in context and having regard to the purpose of the provision. The Court is not required to undertake a review of ‘all of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the issue of the [Third Compliance Notice] in the first place’; See Hana Express Group Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman [56].

(d) the facts and circumstances which led to the Third Compliance Notice being issued are of no direct relevance to the review being conducted pursuant to s 84U(1);
(e) it is for the claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities the facts and circumstances necessary to establish the ground(s) that the claimant relies upon when applying to the Court to cancel the Third Compliance Notice; and
(f) in this context the employer, namely the claimant, is ‘uniquely positioned’ to produce evidence to demonstrate that the allegations in the Third Compliance Notice are not correct. A review of the nature of the allegations demonstrates the nature of the issues that may arise, for example, the correct award or industrial agreement, the correct classification, a calculation of the pay rates applicable. See Hindu Society of Victoria (Australia) Inc v Fair Work Ombudsman [32].

21 While the Application contains many points, only the following are related to the ground of review sought under s 84U(1)(a) of the IR Act:
(a) Mr Pearce worked 20 hours per week, or four hours per day from Monday to Friday and any time spent at LJ Auto Wholesalers beyond that time was because Mr Pearce was using the facilities for personal reasons;
(b) Mr Pearce’s duties were those of a Level 1 employee and he was paid the hourly rate for a Level 2 employee;
(c) to the extent that Mr Pearce did some Level 2 duties, this was minimal and comprised about 30% of his total duties; and
(d) Mr Pearce was paid appropriately during his employment and was never required to perform unpaid work or work more than 20 hours per week during the period referred to in the Third Compliance Notice.
22 Therefore, the claimant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
(a) Mr Pearce worked 20 hours per week, and he was paid for 20 hours per week during the Employment Period, and there was no unpaid work undertaken by Mr Pearce;
(b) as a result, the number of hours that Mr Pearce worked referred to in the Third Compliance Notice is incorrect;
(c) Mr Pearce’s duties during his employment were properly categorised as a Level 1 employee, not a Level 2 employee under the Award; and
(d) as a result, the pay rates for Mr Pearce referred to in the Third Compliance Notice are incorrect.
23 Subject to the provisions of the IR Act, the procedure of the Court relevant to applications under s 84U of the IR Act is contained in the Industrial Magistrate’s Court (General Jurisdiction) Regulations 2005 (WA) (IMC Regulations). Section 113(3) of the IR Act.

24 Notably, reg 35(4) of the IMC Regulations provides that the Court is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter and in any manner as it thinks fit.
25 In Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASC 27, at [40], Commissioner Sleight examined a similarly worded provision regulating the conduct of proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal and made the following observation:
The tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself in such a manner as it thinks appropriate. This does not mean that the rules of evidence are to be ignored. The more flexible procedure provided for does not justify decisions made without a basis in evidence having probative force. The drawing of an inference without evidence is an error of law. Similarly such error is shown when the tribunal bases its conclusion on its own view of a matter which requires evidence. Commissioner Sleight quoting Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] FCA 30; (2002) 66 ALD 579 [25] (Kiefel J).
(citations omitted)
Evidence
26 The parties prepared a statement of agreed facts (Agreed Facts). Exhibit 1 – Statement of Agreed Facts.

27 The claimant relied upon the evidence of Reno Speca (Mr Speca) in a witness statement signed on 16 April 2026. Exhibit 2 – witness statement of Reno Speca signed on 16 April 2026.
Mr Speca was cross-examined on his evidence.
28 The claimant prepared and lodged other witness statements but he did not call any of these witnesses at the hearing and informed the Court that they were not available but gave no reason why they were unavailable.
29 Where the claimant’s other witnesses were not available to be cross-examined on the contents of their witness statements, the Court did not admit these witness statements into evidence.
30 The claimant did not lodge and serve a witness statement on his own behalf, and did not give oral evidence.
31 The Industrial Inspector relied upon two witness statements by Mr Pearce signed on 22 September 2025 Exhibit 4 – witness statement of Aaron Pearce signed on 22 September 2025
and 1 May 2026 Exhibit 5 – witness statement of Aaron Pearce signed on 1 May 2026.
and a witness statement by Ms Dixon signed on 1 May 2026. Exhibit 3.
Mr Pearce and Ms Dixon were also cross-examined on their evidence.
Agreed Facts
32 Mr Pearce was a casual employee employed by LJ Auto Wholesalers between 29 March 2021 and 22 April 2022. LJ Auto Wholesalers is a used car dealership in St James. The Award applied to Mr Pearce’s employment.
33 LJ Auto Wholesalers was first owned and operated by the claimant and his brother, Joshua Speca, in their personal capacities by way of an unincorporated partnership with ABN 38 843 372 892 and then it was subsequently owned and operated by the claimant as a sole trader with ABN 24 409 642 685.
34 During the relevant time, the claimant was the owner of the business which traded as LJ Auto Wholesalers, the claimant and his father, Mr Speca, were responsible for the day-to-day running of LJ Auto Wholesalers.
35 LJ Auto Wholesalers was open to customers Monday to Friday from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm and Saturdays from 8.00 am to 1.00 pm.
36 While a training contract was signed between the claimant and Mr Pearce in approximately September 2021, the traineeship was not subsequently implemented by the claimant and there were no material changes to Mr Pearce’s employment terms and conditions.
37 Mr Pearce’s main duties were cleaning and detailing the exterior and interior of cars, and he also cleaned up the yard.
38 Mr Pearce’s duties cleaning and detailing the exterior and interior of cars included:
(a) washing the exterior of the car down to remove dirt;
(b) preparing the exterior of the car for buffing;
(c) buffing and polishing the exterior of the car;
(d) waxing the car (if the car was good enough);
(e) degreasing and cleaning the engine bay;
(f) sanding and polishing headlight lenses;
(g) dry vacuuming the interior of the car;
(h) massaging a cleaner on to the car seats using a drill with a brush on the end of it;
(i) wet vacuuming the interior of the car;
(j) cleaning the remaining interior of the car; and
(k) applying ‘Armor All’ to any plastics in the interior and/or in the engine bay. Exhibit 1 [12].

39 Mr Pearce often received daily instruction from the claimant about what work needed to be done, other times he was able to identify what worked needed to be done himself. Mr Pearce carried out his work largely on his own, but the quality of his work was monitored and there were occasions when the claimant would help or provide direct supervision to achieve a desired result.
40 The claimant did not keep any records of the days or hours worked by Mr Pearce, or his start and finish times. At the time, LJ Auto Wholesalers did not make timesheets mandatory.
41 During the relevant period, Mr Pearce was paid wages on a weekly basis by electronic funds transfer (EFT), and income tax was generally withheld from the gross amount paid. LJ Auto Wholesalers kept an electronic payroll record in relation to most payments made, and Mr Pearce received pay slip records in relation to most payments made (the Pearce Pay Slips).
42 The claimant and Mr Pearce originally agreed that Mr Pearce would be paid a flat rate of pay of $25 an hour.
43 The Pearce Pay Slips generally record $500 gross, $467 net and $33 tax withheld; however, the Pearce Pay Slips erroneously refer to a flat rate of $16.6666 an hour for 30 ordinary hours of work.
44 The net amount that appears on the Pearce Pay Slips correspond with the net amounts Mr Pearce was paid by EFT. LJ Auto Wholesalers, with the assistance of its accountant Anabel Da Silva (the Accountant), created some amended pay slips to correct the errors identified on the pay slips received by Mr Pearce (Amended Pay Slips). The Amended Pay Slips refer to $24.60 an hour. The Amended Pay Slips also show different gross and net figures to the Pearce Pay Slips, due to the rate of pay used, generally referring to payments of $492 gross, $461 net and $31 tax withheld.
45 A bundle of pay slips, containing some pay slips matching the Pearce Pay Slips and some Amended Pay Slips, was produced by LJ Auto Wholesalers to the Industrial Inspector, along with a declaration signed by the Accountant to explain the discrepancy between the pay slips.
46 The partnership issued Mr Pearce with two income statements: an income statement for the period 1 March 2021 to 30 June 2021 (dated 28 September 2021) that was issued ‘tax ready’ and an income statement issued for the period 1 July 2021 to 29 August 2021 (dated 5 November 2021) issued as ‘not tax ready’. The claimant, as a sole trader, also issued a ‘tax ready’ income statement to Mr Pearce for the 2021/2022 financial year. Exhibit 1 [4].

47 The gross amounts and tax withheld recorded on the Pearce Pay Slips matched the figures recorded on the final ‘tax ready’ income statement issued by the partnership for the financial year ending 30 June 2021. However, as Mr Pearce received three additional net payments of $467 for the weeks ending 18 April 2021, 25 April 2021 and 30 May 2021, for which there were no pay slips or payroll entries, the gross amount paid to Mr Pearce was actually $6,401 (i.e. $5,000 + (3 × $467)) for the 2020/2021 financial year.
48 The gross amounts and tax withheld recorded on the bundle of pay slips matched the figures recorded on the final ‘tax ready’ income statement issued by the claimant as a sole trader for the financial year ending 30 June 2022. However, the gross amount recorded on this income statement was incorrect, and the amount of $21,633.52 was agreed as being the correct gross amount paid in wages for the 2021/2022 financial year.
49 Between the week ending 29 August 2021 and the week ending 20 March 2022, there were generally weekly payments of $467 net paid (according to bank statements) and $31 tax withheld (according to the amended pay slips) meaning $498 gross was paid in wages in each pay period.
50 For the week ending 27 March 2022, while a bank statement shows $467 net paid, there were no pay slips or payroll entries resulting in no tax being withheld on top of this amount, meaning only $467 gross was paid.
51 From 3 April 2022, Mr Pearce received $650 net payment for 30 ordinary hours of work, but the bundle of pay slips produced by the claimant erroneously referred to $461 net meaning that a total of $681 gross was actually paid ($650 net and $31 tax withheld).
52 For the week ending 24 April 2022, Mr Pearce received a net payment of $390 despite the bundle of pay slips produced by the claimant recording $737 gross and $650 net paid. The result being that $477 gross was paid ($390 net and $87 tax withheld).
53 Occasionally, Mr Pearce received additional payments to reimburse him for work clothing, workshop tools and parts. These additional payments often erroneously appeared on pay slips but were not payments for wages and should not be included in his gross income.
54 In the week ending 16 January 2022, there were no pay slips, payroll entries nor evidence of any wages paid, meaning no wages were paid for that week at all. The reason for why there were no wages paid in this period is an issue in dispute.
55 The Industrial Inspector was employed as a public servant officer and is a designated industrial inspector pursuant to s 98(1) of the IR Act.
56 The Industrial Inspector first served a compliance notice on the claimant by post and email on 1 October 2025 (First Compliance Notice).
57 After the Industrial Inspector was informed by the Accountant that the claimant was overseas at the time of service, the First Compliance Notice was withdrawn on 22 October 2025 and another compliance notice was served on the claimant by post and email on 4 November 2025, after his return (Second Compliance Notice).
58 After an extension of time was sought by the claimant in relation to the Second Compliance Notice, the Second Compliance Notice was also withdrawn and then the Industrial Inspector served the Third Compliance Notice on the claimant by post and email on 21 November 2025 with a deadline of 16 December 2025.
59 The claimant has sought a review of the Third Compliance Notice because the claimant:
(a) does not agree to Mr Pearce being classified and assessed at Level 2 rates of pay under the Award; and
(b) denies the amount of hours Mr Pearce is alleged to have worked in the Third Compliance Notice.
Mr Speca
60 Mr Speca is the owner and operator of Saint James Auto Trader, located at 1038 Albany Highway, St James. He operates this business together with his wife, Mary Speca, and the claimant, who assists in the daily running of this business.
61 Mr Speca states that Mr Pearce was originally employed by Saint James Auto Trader in 2017. He was later employed by LJ Auto Wholesalers from 29 March 2021 until April 2022.
62 Mr Speca states that during this period, Mr Pearce was employed as a general hand on a casual basis, where his usual working hours were four hours per day, five days per week, totalling 20 hours per week. Mr Speca says Mr Pearce was paid in accordance with the relevant Award at Level 1, and at no time during his employment did he perform duties that would fall under a Level 2 classification.
63 Mr Speca states that Mr Pearce was treated with respect and was considered almost like a member of the family. He was trusted to open the car dealership in the mornings and occasionally lock up the yard at the end of the day.
64 During his employment, the claimant, on behalf of LJ Auto Wholesalers, would often assist Mr Pearce by paying for his weekly fuel and providing cooked breakfast and lunch.
65 Mr Speca says that Mr Pearce’s working hours were flexible, and there were occasions when he remained on the premises outside his normal working hours. Mr Speca states that on several occasions he told Mr Pearce that he could go home after completing his normal working hours, however, he would sometimes refuse and say words to the effect of, ‘I have nowhere to go. I would rather stay here’. Exhibit 2 [8].

66 At times Mr Pearce remained at the premises using the air conditioning during summer or heating during winter and occasionally used the workplace wi-fi or computer for personal use.
67 Mr Speca states that he made it clear to Mr Pearce on multiple occasions that he would only be paid for his normal hours, which were four hours per day and 20 hours per week. Mr Pearce replied with words to the effect of, ‘of course I understand’. Exhibit 2 [10].

68 To the best of his knowledge, Mr Pearce was content working 20 hours per week, particularly due to his health reasons, and he never complained about his working hours or pay during his employment.
69 Mr Speca clarified in evidence-in-chief that the claimant offered Mr Pearce extra hours, which Mr Pearce refused. Mr Speca said the claimant could not offer fulltime employment to Mr Pearce, and it was not until the last two to three weeks when he could not get fulltime employment that Mr Pearce resigned.
70 In cross-examination, Mr Speca agreed that Saint James Auto Traders was different to LJ Auto Wholesalers, but he said he worked at both businesses.
71 He maintained that it was always his evidence that at no time during his employment did Mr Pearce perform duties that fell within a Level 2 classification under the Award.
72 Mr Speca was referred to cl 10(3) of the Award – Classification of Employees, as it relates to a Level 2 employee and confirmed that Mr Pearce did maintenance of vehicle presentation inside and out (see cl 10(3)(c)). ts 12.

73 Mr Speca was also referred to Exhibit 3 at JD38, an email from the claimant dated 9 December 2025 (using an email address identified to Mr Speca) where he informed Ms Dixon that:
[W]e still paid him at the Level 2 hourly rate. His daily tasks under supervision included general labouring, cleaning yard vehicles, car washing, polishing, vacuuming, wiping glass, cleaning oil spillages, wheel cleaning, engine cleaning, checking and refilling fluids, applying tyre shine, checking and charging batteries, and starting/running vehicles.
On occasion, he performed limited Level 2 duties—such as tyre pressure checks, wheel changes, and basic vehicle servicing not requiring mechanical knowledge. In the last six months of his traineeship, he began receiving training in tyre fitting and car detailing; however, he struggled to perform these tasks unsupervised and was never able to complete them independently. These Level 2-related tasks made up less than 30% of his daily workload. The remaining 70% of his duties were Level 1. Exhibit 3, JD38; see also the originating claim.
(emphasis omitted)
74 Mr Speca agreed with the contents of this email, which was different to what was contained in his witness statement.
75 Contrary to the contents of this email, Mr Speca denied that Mr Pearce was carrying out duties consistent with a Level 2 employee and said that Mr Pearce cleaned the outside of cars. He also stated that between 5% and 20% of Mr Pearce’s duties were Level 2 duties.
76 Mr Speca said Mr Pearce was never unsupervised and could not identify anything under the duties for Level 1 of cl 10 of the Award relevant to Mr Pearce’s duties. Mr Speca then said it was a ‘grey area’ whether Mr Pearce vacuumed the inside of cars. ts 16  17; referring to cl 10(3)(c) of the Award.

77 Mr Speca said in relation to Level 3 duties, Mr Pearce was supervised, and he did not fit tyres.
78 Mr Speca then said Mr Pearce occasionally undertook Level 2 duties, but this was not something he did all of the time. Further, Mr Pearce assisted in fitting tyres, but he was employed to do general duties and clean cars.
79 Mr Speca then conceded that he did not know if Mr Pearce was paid at Level 1 or Level 2 and he did not know what was going on.
80 Mr Speca was referred to a text message exchange between ‘Sara’ using the claimant’s mobile phone and Mr Pearce on 15 February 2022:
Claimant: Hey Aaron it’s sara. Lawrence is really sick and is asleep, I don’t think I should wake him. Do you know if he is needed urgently at yard or if there are customers he needs to come and see this [afternoon]? All I know is there’s 4 new tyres arriving this [afternoon] (for which car I still need to determine) and on oil filter for gearbox for Magna.
Mr Pearce: Nothing that can’t wait. I know about the tyres and filter. Customers are coming and going. All g for now…
Claimant: So will u fit the tyres?
Mr Pearce: Tyres are for a customer, they’ll come back tomorrow
Claimant: Ok. Exhibit 4, 694.

81 In response, Mr Speca said that this was four years ago, and he had a clear memory of this day and that he was present at LJ Auto Wholesalers because he had a very good memory. Mr Speca maintained that Mr Pearce worked only 20 hours per week and there were no exceptions. He said he was on site ‘most of the time’ albeit he had his own business to run. Mr Speca said Mr Pearce reported to him and then said he also reported to the claimant. ts 27  28.

82 Mr Speca was referred to the interview between Ms Dixon, the claimant and Mr Speca on 23 January 2025 where he and the claimant were asked about who Mr Pearce reported to. The claimant informed Ms Dixon that Mr Pearce reported to the claimant and ‘Sara’. Mr Speca informed Ms Dixon that he got involved with the money. Exhibit 3, 246.

83 Mr Speca conceded that he and the claimant did not keep any records of Mr Pearce’s working hours. He said Mr Pearce kept his own hours and kept them logged on ‘the computer’. Mr Speca said there was no need for the hours to be written down. He also conceded there was no written agreement with Mr Pearce. ts 30  31.

84 Mr Speca conceded that there were no pay slips or other records of Mr Pearce working 30 hours per week or any other number of hours.
85 Mr Speca agreed that a notice to produce was issued to the claimant which included the provision of pay slips and that pay slips were amended after the investigation into Mr Pearce’s complaint commenced, which also included amendments made to hours worked.
86 Mr Speca agreed that Mr Pearce was trusted to open LJ Auto Wholesalers at 8.00 am but that he did not start work at 8.00 am, and implied he was there to get out of the rain or heat. He accepted there might have been one or two occasions that Mr Pearce started work at 8.00 am.
87 Mr Speca said that there was no need for any employment records. ts 33.

88 Mr Speca said that Mr Pearce never asked for paid extra work. He never agreed to work extra time. ts 34.
Mr Speca was referred to historical text messages between the claimant and Mr Pearce dated 6 July 2019 indicating the claimant requested Mr Pearce to work extra hours. Exhibit 4, 653.

89 Mr Speca was referred to a Google Maps timeline for 14 July 2021 which indicated that Mr Pearce arrived at a McDonalds at 7.24 am and stayed there until 7.48 am. Mr Speca accepted that LJ Auto Wholesalers is across the road from the same McDonalds. He was then referred to the same Google Maps timeline for 14 July 2021 which indicated that Mr Pearce drove from the same McDonalds to a tyre outlet and mechanics from 7.50 am to 8.50 am. Exhibit 4, 372; ts 36.
Mr Speca said he did not think this was work-related. ts 35.

90 Mr Speca was then referred to a text message from the claimant to Mr Pearce dated 13 July 2021 at about 5.20 pm:
Claimant: Did u put the tyre in the back of Sara’s Ute
Mr Pearce: Yes
Claimant: [the claimant sent a Google URL to Mr Pearce.]
Mr Pearce: What needs doing there
Claimant: Pick up the tail shaft before opening up in the morning
Mr Pearce: Kk
Claimant: Then depending on weather roll the territory in and start bolting it back together. I have left the bolts [in the] glove box.
Mr Pearce: Kk
Claimant: When u get there in the morning the mechanic is actually unit 3 which is directly behind the place I sent you it’s called allans automotive. Exhibit 4, 681  682.

91 Thereafter, Mr Speca accepted that the attendance by Mr Pearce on 14 July 2021, consistent with the Google Maps timeline, was work-related. ts 38.
When it was suggested that, consistent with the Google Maps timeline, Mr Pearce was at work for eight hours on that day, Mr Speca said he did not know and that he could have been ‘making up time’. Mr Speca conceded that he had no recollection of that day or the conversation with the claimant, and he did not know if Mr Pearce was working or not, contrary to his previous evidence of the excellence of his memory. ts 39.

92 I pause to also note that the Application referred to Mr Pearce being provided with free breakfast after opening the business and waiting for the claimant or Mr Speca to attend work, notwithstanding that the Google Maps timeline shows Mr Pearce attending the McDonalds across the road from LJ Auto Wholesalers for about 20 minutes prior to 8.00 am.
93 In response to questions about the claimant or LJ Auto Wholesalers not recording Mr Pearce’s hours of work, Mr Speca’s response was that Mr Pearce kept his own hours, and he did not appear to appreciate or accept that it was the employer’s obligation to prepare payslips and record time worked.
94 Mr Speca was referred to a Google Maps timeline for 10 December 2021 which indicated that Mr Pearce was at work for longer than four hours. Exhibit 4, 521.
Mr Speca said Mr Pearce probably opened LJ Auto Wholesalers, but he had no record of any hours worked by Mr Pearce on that day. He was then referred to a text message from Mr Pearce to the claimant on the same day sent at 3.35 pm:
Locking up heading home. See you Monday. Exhibit 4, 690.

95 In terms of working on Saturdays, Mr Speca said that Mr Pearce may have come in on a Saturday but only to work for his own needs. He conceded that it might have been for LJ Auto Wholesalers on one or two Saturdays, and that this could have been to ‘make up’ work. ts 42  43.

96 Mr Speca was not aware of the Award pay conditions.
97 Mr Speca was referred to a Google Maps timeline for 24 April 2021 (a Saturday) which indicated that Mr Pearce was at LJ Auto Wholesalers from around 10.00 am to midday. Exhibit 4, 291.
Mr Speca said that Mr Pearce may have been working on his own car, and he did not recall the day.
98 Mr Speca was referred to a text message sent by the claimant to Mr Pearce on 24 April 2021 at about 8.34 am regarding the claimant’s car keys:
Ha, I forgot I asked u. Sara grabbed them when she left by accident. Thanks for this morning Arron really appreciate your effort this week and always mate [sic]. If [you are] running low in fuel I’ll be at the yard mid morning. Otherwise remind me Tuesday to give you the card 🖒 take it easy. Exhibit 4, 674.

99 Mr Speca conceded that he did not know what was going on.
100 Mr Speca denied telling Mr Pearce to stop keeping records and denied saying words to the effect of ‘if you scratch my back, I will scratch yours’. Instead saying that if Mr Pearce did the right thing, then ‘we’ll do the right thing by you.’ Exhibit 4 [142], [228]. Cf ts 46  47.

101 Mr Speca said he paid Mr Pearce extra hours in the last two to three weeks of his employment, and that his pay increased in the last two to three weeks. ts 48.

102 Notwithstanding Mr Speca saying that Mr Pearce wanted more hours, he said Mr Pearce refused the extra hours offered to him. Thereafter, Mr Pearce obtained more hours at Bunnings. However, in the last two to three weeks of employment, the claimant paid Mr Pearce the equivalent of 30 hours per week or an extra 10 hours of work. Mr Speca then said that Mr Pearce was not working the equivalent of five hours per day because he was attending to personal matters, but he was paid for the time in any event. ts 47  48.

103 Mr Speca begrudgingly admitted that he was unhappy when Mr Pearce resigned. ts 50.

104 Mr Speca did not present as a reliable witness. His evidence was inconsistent both in respect of his evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination and was inconsistent with documentary evidence. It was apparent that while he may have said he was running ‘the business’, Mr Speca did not have any real knowledge of what occurred between the claimant and Mr Pearce. He professed to have a good memory of some events, but had no memory of others, notwithstanding that he said he was present at LJ Auto Wholesalers most of the time. Mr Speca harboured some resentment against Mr Pearce, where he purported to treat Mr Pearce as a member of the family and appeared to suggest that being paid ‘in kind’ was sufficient.
105 Mr Speca had no knowledge of the payment terms under the Award and admitted that LJ Auto Wholesalers never recorded any hours of work for Mr Pearce. At one point Mr Speca said that Mr Pearce prepared his own pay slips and appeared to consider that this was entirely appropriate. Mr Speca was at times argumentative, vague and gave incredible responses to questions asked in cross-examination (by way of example, suggesting that Mr Pearce unlocked the premises at 8.00 am only to then wait for the claimant or that he was getting out of the rain). ts 32.
Mr Speca downplayed the work carried out by Mr Pearce in the face of objective documentary evidence between the claimant and Mr Pearce, and contrary to the Agreed Facts.
106 I do not accept and do not find reliable any evidence given by Mr Speca concerning Mr Pearce’s duties at work and the make-up of those duties, hours of work or what Mr Pearce was or was not paid for. Simply put, I have no confidence in the accuracy of his evidence as it relates to Mr Pearce’s employment at LJ Auto Wholesalers.
107 Where I do not rely upon the reliability or accuracy of Mr Speca’s evidence, the other evidence before the Court is the Agreed Facts and Mr Pearce’s and Ms Dixon’s evidence (both their witness statements and cross-examination).
Mr Pearce’s Classification Under the Award
108 The claimant asserts that Mr Pearce was employed as a Level 1 employee under the Award and that his duties were those of a Level 1 employee.
109 Clause 10 of the Award provides for the classification of employees, which is then linked to the payment of wages prescribed in cl 11.
Motor Vehicle Industry Employee Level 1
110 Clause 10.2 of the Award provides that an employee at Level 1 performs routine duties essentially of a manual nature and to the level of the employee’s training, including:
(a) performs general labouring and cleaning duties;
(b) exercises minimal judgment;
(c) works under direct supervision;
(d) is undertaking structured training so as to enable the employee to work at Level 2;
(e) provides customer service to the required standard.
Level 1 employees carry out work connected with functions, including:
(a) car washing/polishing (manual);
(b) provisioning of driveway supplies;
(c) windscreen cleaning;
(d) manual fuel dispensing.
Motor Vehicle Industry Employee Level 2
111 Clause 10.3 of the Award provides that an employee at this level performs work above and beyond the skills of an employee at Level 1 and to the level of the employee’s training:
(a) works under direct supervision either individually or in a team environment;
(b) understands and undertakes basic quality control/assurance procedures including:
(i) the ability to recognise basic quality deviations and faults;
(ii) the ability to determine the level of action required and takes appropriate action having regard to the employee’s level of skills, competence and training.
(c) provides customer service to the required standard;
(d) exercises limited discretion within established procedures and limits.
Level 2 employees carry out work connected with the functions including:
(a) control of the automated car washing facilities including supervising Level 1 and rectifying faults;
(b) stock counting and recording, replenishment and rotation;
(c) maintenance of vehicle presentation standards of interior/exterior;
(d) removal and replacement of minor panelling and application of rustproofing for routine vehicles;
(e) under bonnet checks, tyre pressure checks and wheel changing;
(f) assist with hire and sales transactions (eg trailers, vehicles, lawnmowers);
(g) assist with the provision of on the job training;
(h) greasing and lubrication;
(i) servicing of vehicles (where no mechanical knowledge is required).
112 In determining whether Mr Pearce falls within a particular classification, the following principles apply:
(a) the Court is to make findings of fact of what Mr Pearce was employed to do and then decide whether upon the facts so found (or agreed), he was employed to do work of the character of either a Level 1 or Level 2 employee;
(b) in doing so, regard is had to the substantial nature and purpose of his employment, which may involve a question of degree and value judgment; and
(c) the contract of employment or evidence of it, along with a comprehensive picture of the whole of the employment are factors that go to answering the question of what is the substantial nature and purpose of Mr Pearce’s employment. Applying the principles enunciated in Federate Clerks’ Union of Australia Industrial Union of Workers, WA Branch v Cary (1977) 57 WAIG 585, 586 (Burt CJ) 586 (Wickham J); also referred to in Doropoulos v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia, Industrial Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch (1989) 69 WAIG 1290, 1292 (Sharkey P).

Determination
113 As provided in the Agreed Facts, Mr Pearce was employed as a casual employee by LJ Auto Wholesalers.
114 Mr Pearce’s main duties were cleaning and detailing the exterior and interior of cars, and he also engaged in general cleaning duties, including cleaning up the yard, He did this with some supervision, but he also did these duties on his own without supervision. There was some monitoring of the quality of his work.
115 In addition, his duties included buffing and polishing the exterior of cars, waxing cars, sanding and polishing headlight lenses, dry and wet vacuuming the interior of cars, and other duties associated with cleaning the interior of cars.
116 Where a Level 1 employee’s duties are limited to manual car washing and polishing, providing driveway supplies, cleaning windscreens and manual fuel dispensing, it is readily apparent that Mr Pearce’s duties went beyond that.
117 Mr Pearce’s duties, as described in the Agreed Facts, are consistent with maintenance of vehicle presentation standards, both interior and exterior, which are duties that fall within a Level 2 employee.
118 Further, as demonstrated in the cross-examination of Mr Speca, Mr Pearce undertook duties which included engine cleaning, checking and refilling fluids, applying tyre shine, checking and charging batteries, and starting/running vehicles. He also undertook tyre pressure checks and wheel changes. Also as demonstrated in the cross-examination of Mr Speca, he was expected to do that when the claimant was not in attendance, because, for example, the claimant was unwell.
119 When cross-examined, Mr Pearce said that from his memory he fitted about four tyres per week and he was able to do that on his own, although sometimes he required assistance. This evidence was consistent with the text messages referred to in Mr Speca’s cross-examination.
120 Where I do not accept Mr Speca’s evidence on Mr Pearce’s duties and the composition of those duties, and I am satisfied that Mr Pearce’s evidence in cross-examination was not inconsistent with the Agreed Facts, I am satisfied, and I find that the substantial nature of Mr Pearce’s employment was consistent with a Level 2 employee.
121 It is not necessary to recite Mr Pearce’s evidence in making this finding based on the:
(a) Agreed Facts of Mr Pearce’s duties;
(b) witness evidence put to Mr Speca in cross-examination;
(c) consistency of Mr Pearce’s cross-examination with the documentary evidence; and
(d) lack of reliable evidence to the contrary.
122 That is, where the claimant’s case was not otherwise supported by reliable evidence proving on the balance of probabilities that Mr Pearce’s classification was a Level 1 employee, it is unnecessary to recite Mr Pearce’s witness evidence in making a finding that his classification was a Level 2 employee.
123 Therefore, the claimant has failed to prove that the reference in the Third Contravention Notice Exhibit 3, JD37 (page 404).
(also referred to in Ms Dixon’s evidence) Exhibit 3 [90].
to Mr Pearce’s classification as a Level 2 employee is incorrect for the purposes of an applicable hourly rate to be paid under cl 11 of the Award.
The Hours Worked by Mr Pearce
124 The claimant asserts that Mr Pearce did not work more than 20 hours per week, save for the last two to three weeks of Mr Pearce’s employment where he worked 30 hours per week.
125 The claimant denies that Mr Pearce worked the hours relied upon for the Underpayment referred to in the Third Compliance Notice.
126 The insurmountable hurdle faced by the claimant is that based on the Agreed Facts, consistent with the admission made by Mr Speca in cross-examination, the claimant and LJ Auto Wholesalers never kept any records of Mr Pearce’s hours of work.
127 Further to this, Mr Speca said that Mr Pearce kept his own hours of work and logged it on ‘the computer [at the work site]’. ts 30.
This information was not produced by the claimant. Mr Pearce was expected at times to prepare his own pay slips. Mr Speca did not see the need for any employment records.
128 In addition, the income statements issued by the businesses for the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 financial years only show what LJ Auto Wholesalers paid Mr Pearce. They do not go to show the hours Mr Pearce actually worked.
129 It is apparent that the overall attitude to employment records was lackadaisical.
130 As already stated, to the extent that Mr Speca was able to give evidence on the number of hours worked by Mr Pearce, I found Mr Speca’s evidence to be unreliable.
131 The Industrial Inspector detailed the evidence relied upon to form a reasonable belief for the purposes of the contraventions referred to in the Third Compliance Notice along with detailed spreadsheets of hours and calculations based on, amongst other things, information provided by Mr Pearce. Exhibit 3.

132 Ms Dixon was cross-examined on whether she independently investigated Mr Pearce’s complaint to which she confirmed she had. She further confirmed that, in part, she relied upon the Google Maps timeline provided by Mr Pearce to calculate the hours he worked. She confirmed the contraventions in the Third Compliance Notice were based on Mr Pearce’s evidence and evidence produced by him, including the Google Maps timelines, and other evidence. ts 56.

133 Ms Dixon could not answer technical questions about Google Maps timelines.
134 In re-examination, Ms Dixon confirmed the investigatory material in Attachment A of the Third Compliance Notice formed the basis of her reasonable belief that the contraventions listed in the notice occurred. ts 58  59.

135 Mr Pearce was cross-examined on the number of hours he reported to Centrelink. Mr Pearce said he reported to Centrelink that he was paid for ‘20 hours’ worth of work and how many hours I was paid for, which was 20.’ ts 64.
I did not take this to mean that he did not work more than 20 hours per week, only that he reported to Centrelink what he was, in fact, paid for. Mr Pearce confirmed that he was given more work in the last two to three weeks of his employment and he was paid more. However, from his perspective he was already working a significant number of hours and was already effectively working fulltime hours and his pay did not change. ts 65.

136 Mr Pearce said he did not complain about the lack of pay because he wanted to keep his first ‘real job’ and the income that came from the employment. ts 66.

Determination
137 There was no evidence led by the claimant, including in the cross-examination of Ms Dixon and Mr Pearce, that in any way displaced the number of hours worked by Mr Pearce relied upon by the Industrial Inspector to calculate the Underpayment.
138 That is, the claimant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the hours worked by Mr Pearce referred to in the Third Compliance Notice are incorrect.
Outcome
139 The claimant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that in the Third Compliance Notice:
(a) Mr Pearce was incorrectly classified as a Level 2 employee under cl 10 of the Award; and
(b) the hours of work undertaken by Mr Pearce during the Employment Period was incorrectly calculated.
140 Accordingly, the claimant has failed to discharge, to the required standard, the ground relied upon for the Application, being that he did not commit the contraventions set out in the Third Compliance Notice.
141 The Application is dismissed and, pursuant to s 84U(4) of the IR Act, the Third Compliance Notice is confirmed.




D. SCADDAN
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE



Schedule I: Third Compliance Notice
COMPLIANCE NOTICE
Issued under section 84Q of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)
Date of issue: 21 November 2025
ISSUED TO
Name
Lawrence Speca
Trading name
LJ Auto Wholesalers
Employing entity names and Australian Business Numbers
Lawrence Speca and Joshua Speca trading as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 38 843 372 892); and Lawrence Speca trading as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 24 409 642 685).
Address for service
1038 Albany Hwy
ST JAMES WA 6102
I, Jillian Dixon, being an Industrial Inspector designated under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, reasonably believe that Lawrence Speca trading as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 24 409 642 685) and Lawrence Speca and Joshua Speca trading in partnership as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 38 843 372 892) have contravened an entitlement provision – being a provision of the Motor Vehicle (Service Station, Sales Establishments, Rust Prevention and Paint Protection) Industry Award No. 29 of 1980 (the Award)– as described below.
This Compliance Notice requires you, as the continuing employer across both entities, to:
a) take the specified actions described in this notice to remedy the direct effects of the contraventions outlined below; and
b) provide reasonable evidence of your compliance with this notice to me by 16 December 2025.
Details of the contraventions
I have a reasonable belief that between 5 April 2021 and 22 April 2022 you contravened the Award as set out in the table below.
Clause
Nature of the contravention
Clause 11 of the Award
Failure to pay the correct casual hourly rate of pay for all ordinary hours worked between Monday and Friday.
Clause 12 of the Award
Failure to pay the correct casual hourly rate of pay for all additional hours worked.
Clause 13 of the Award
Failure to pay correct casual hourly rate of pay for all overtime hours worked.
Attachment A provides a summary of:
· the relevant award clauses; and
· the evidence I have relied upon to establish my reasonable belief that the above contraventions occurred.
The employee affected by the contraventions and the amount of their underpayments are as follows. The attached spreadsheets set out how I have calculated the underpayments.
Employee Name
Employing entity
Period of employment
Total underpayment
Aaron Pearce
Lawrence Speca and Joshua Speca trading as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 38 843 372 892)
5 April 2021 to 30 June 2021
$ 2,321.07
Aaron Pearce
Lawrence Speca trading as LJ Auto Wholesalers (ABN 24 409 642 685)
1 July 2021 to 22 April 2022
$ 17,679.42
Total underpayment to Aaron Pearce
$ 20,000.49
Required action under this Compliance Notice
You, as the employer, are required to take the following actions to remedy the direct effects of the contraventions.
1. Rectify the identified underpayments by making payment in full of the total amount to the employee identified in the table above.
Employee’s Name
BSB
Employee’s bank account number
Aaron Pearce
…
…
2. Calculate additional superannuation contributions required to be paid to the listed employee as a result of the underpaid amounts.
3. Pay the additional superannuation contributions identified in point [2] to the chosen superannuation fund of each employee. The employee’s superannuation fund details are as follows.
Employee’s Name
Employee’s superannuation fund
Employee’s account number
Aaron Pearce
…
…
4. Produce the following as reasonable evidence to me of your compliance with the actions specified in points [1] and [3] above:
a) proof that full payment has been made to the employee identified in the table above, such as pay slips which set out gross and net payments and a bank transfer receipt showing the net payment made to each employee; and
b) proof that the additional superannuation contributions identified in point [2] have been paid to the employee’s superannuation fund.
5. You must provide this evidence to me on or before 16 December 2025 via post or email.
…
6. Your rights and obligations under this Compliance Notice are attached. The Department encourages you to seek independent advice from a lawyer, accountant or employer association in relation to this Compliance Notice.
7. Please contact me on … if you have any questions regarding this notice.
…
Rights and obligations under this Compliance Notice
1. Your compliance with this notice is not an admission that you have contravened, or have been found to have contravened, the Award.
2. Pursuant to section 84T(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, a person issued with a Compliance Notice must comply with that notice.
3. Section 84T(1) is a civil penalty provision for the purposes of section 83E of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, and failure to comply with this notice may cause you to be liable to pay a penalty unless you have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply. The maximum penalty for an individual is $18,000.
4. You could also be liable for a civil penalty under section 83E of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 if you wilfully mislead an inspector in response to this notice.
5. If you do not comply with this notice, the Department may take enforcement action against you and/or individuals involved in your failure to comply with this notice to recover any outstanding amounts which this notice requires you to pay and to seek civil penalties against you and/or other individuals involved.
6. You may apply to the Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia for a review of this notice in accordance with section 84U of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 on either or both of the following grounds:
a) you did not commit the contraventions set out in this notice;
b) the notice does not comply with section 84Q of the Industrial Relations Act 1979.
Schedule I: Third Compliance Notice (continued)
Attachment A
Summary of applicable clauses of the Award
To assist you in complying with the actions specified in this notice, the following sets out the applicable award clauses.
Clause
Summary
Clause 3(1)
The Award applies to businesses who deal in the buying, selling or exchanging of new or second-hand motor vehicles.
Clause 10(2)
Motor Vehicle Industry Employee Level 2 includes employees who carry out work connected with the maintenance of vehicle presentation standards of interior/exterior and servicing of vehicles (where no mechanical knowledge is required).
Clause 11
Clause 11(1)(d) sets out the minimum award rate of pay for a permanent employee, and clause 11(4) requires the payment of an additional 20% loading for casual employees.
During the relevant period, the following hourly rates were payable to Level 2 employees:

5 April 2021 to 30 June 2021
1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022
Permanent employees
$20.48
$21.00
Casual employees
$24.58
$25.20

Clause 12
All employees (including casual staff) are to be paid the following additional loadings:

Percentage from 7.00am to 6.00pm
Percentage from 6.00pm to 7.00am
(a) Monday to Friday
0%
15%
(b) Saturdays
25%
40%
(c) Sundays
75%
90%
(d) Public Holidays
100%
115%

Clause 13(1)
All work done beyond the ordinary working hours on any day, Monday to 12 noon Saturday, inclusive, shall be paid for at the rate of time and one half for the first two hours and double time thereafter.
Ordinary hours shall mean the hours of work fixed in an establishment in accordance with Clause 8. - Hours
Clause
Summary
Clause 8(1)
Subject to the provisions of this clause, the ordinary hours of work shall be an average of not more than 38 per week to be worked on one of the following bases:
(i) 38 hours within a work cycle not exceeding seven consecutive days;
(ii) 76 hours within a work cycle not exceeding 14 consecutive days;
(iii) 114 hours within a work cycle not exceeding 21 consecutive days;
(iv) 152 hours within a work cycle not exceeding 28 consecutive days;
(v) 304 hours within a work cycle not exceeding eight weeks for the purposes of working an eight-week roster.
Summary of evidence relied upon
I have relied upon the following evidence to establish my reasonable belief that the contraventions listed in this notice have occurred.
1. Employment records and information provided by Mr Pearce including their:
a) Witness statement;
b) Bank statements from 26 February 2021 to 25 April 2022;
c) Pay slips from LJ Auto and corresponding MyPayroll reports;
d) Google Maps timelines dated March 2021 to April 2022;
e) Resignation email dated 8 April 2022;
f) Invoices kept regarding car parts and clothing that was reimbursed;
g) Bundle of text messages exchanged with you, Reno Speca (R Speca) and Sara Speca;
h) Text messages exchanged with their mother dated 22 and 23 April 2022; and
i) Income Statements and Tax Returns lodged with the ATO in relation to employment at LJ Auto in the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 financial years.
2. Employment records and information provided by you and R Speca, including:
a) Australian Business Register registration details for ABN 38 843 372 892 and ABN 24 409 642 685;
b) Accountant’s declaration dated 28 June 2022;
c) 55 pay slips;
d) A bank transfer record recording transactions between 21 October 2021 to 25 April 2022;
e) Traineeship contract between LJ Auto and A Pearce;
f) Statements made by you and R Speca during Record of Interview conducted on 23 January 2025;
g) File note recording statements made by L Speca on 20 December 2024; and
h) File notes recording statements made by R Speca on 9 August 2022, 7 September 2022, 20 October 2022, 23 December 2024 and 2 January 2025.