The claimant was employed by the respondent as a disability support worker covered by the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services (SCHADS) Award. On 6 May 2026, the Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia (Court) entered default judgment against the respondent after it failed to lodge a response to the claimant’s originating claim for underpayment within the time allowed. The Court ordered the respondent to pay more than $19,000 in unpaid wages, superannuation, personal and annual leave, and $461 in pre-judgment interest.

This decision concerned whether a civil penalty should also be imposed for the respondent’s contraventions of sections 44 and 323 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

The claimant gave evidence that he had been paid regularly from September 2024 until November 2025, when the respondent stopped paying wages for work performed over a period of approximately four weeks. The claimant also did not receive payment for accrued annual leave on his termination or for personal leave taken during his employment. According to the claimant, he repeatedly raised the issue of unpaid wages with the respondent's officers and was told that payment would be made.

The respondent did not provide a response to the claimant’s evidence or outline of submission, or provide any explanation for the non-payment of entitlements.

In assessing the appropriate penalty, the Court found that the respondent had committed three separate contraventions of the Act, including:
•    failing to pay in full for the performance of work (s 323(1) of the Act);
•    failing to pay accrued and untaken annual leave on termination (s 44 of the Act); and
•    failing to pay taken personal leave entitlements (s 44 of the Act).

The Court rejected any suggestion that the contraventions arose from a single course of conduct, noting that each contravention involved separate failures of minimum entitlements under the Act.

The Court found the conduct to be deliberate on the basis that the claimant had previously been paid correctly, the respondent was aware of its obligations, and there was no evidence suggesting the contraventions resulted from a misunderstanding, administrative error or genuine dispute. The Court also noted evidence that senior management was involved in the conduct and that there had been no cooperation, contrition or corrective action by the respondent.

The Court placed particular emphasis on the vulnerability of workers in the disability and community services sector, accepting that support workers often continue providing essential care to high-needs NDIS participants even if their wages and entitlements are unpaid, making them especially susceptible to exploitation. Further, the Court observed that workers in this sector may be less aware of their industrial rights and less able to enforce them.

The Court held that both specific and general deterrence strongly favoured the imposition of a substantial penalty. Specific deterrence was important because the respondent had not paid the outstanding entitlements, had failed to engage with the proceedings at any stage and had recently registered two new businesses. The Court considered there was a real risk of future contraventions unless meaningful penalties were imposed. General deterrence was also significant to reinforce that employers in the community services sector must comply with minimum employment standards.

Having regard to all relevant factors, the Court imposed penalties of:
•    $20,000 for failing to pay wages in full;
•    $15,000 for failing to pay accrued annual leave on termination; and
•    $10,000 for failing to pay personal leave entitlements.

This resulted in a total penalty of $45,000, representing approximately 16% of the applicable maximum penalty of $297,000. The Court ordered that the penalty be paid directly to the claimant. 

The full decision can be read here.