(1) A person who is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision is taken to have contravened that provision.

Note: If a person (the involved person) is taken under this subsection to have contravened a civil remedy provision, the involved person's contravention may be a serious contravention (see subsection 557A(5A)). Serious contraventions attract higher maximum penalties (see subsection 539(2)).

(2) A person is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision if, and only if, the person:

(a) has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention; or

(b) has induced the contravention, whether by threats or promises or otherwise; or

(c) has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contravention; or

(d) has conspired with others to effect the contravention.

1. Written and oral evidence was provided by the applicant. Neither respondent gave any evidence.
2. The following summary of facts is based on my acceptance of the applicant's unchallenged evidence.
3. The applicant's written contract provided for weekly payment of salary to be paid in arrears of one week.
4. Weekly payslips were provided on Fridays with payment indicated by the following day. Late payment of wages started in November 2024. Multiple employees were treated the same way. Some employees were embarrassed by not being able to meet automatic deductions for mortgages. Pernix had over 25 FTE employees at the time.
5. Often no payment was made for another two to five days, and then usually without any forewarning or explanation. Sometimes the payment was for wages owed from earlier weeks. No corrected, amended or other payslip was issued at the time of payment being made. The applicant had to keep his own records to track the non-payments.
6. The first period of more than one month delay was the wage to be paid on 13 December 2024, per the corresponding payslip, which was not paid until 14 January 2025.
7. The second period of more than one month delay was for wages due on 20 December 2024, which were not paid until 21 January 2025.
8. The applicant said he received some superannuation contributions in each period, but not the full entitlement. He received notification from the ATO on 6 December 2024 of a distribution into his superannuation account of $812.44 as part of the contribution for the three months ending 30 September 2021, that is, more than three years after it was due. An outstanding balance of $454.74 for that quarter, and $756.69 for the December 2021 quarter, were paid into his account on 8 January 2025. Part of the outstanding balance for the December 2021 quarter was paid on 24 February 2025, with the final amount paid on 13 March 2025. Between then and the hearing, all other arrears of contributions were paid by Pernix.
9. The applicant's evidence is that the second respondent was the critical and most common point of authorisation for business and administrative operations as COO. He had responsibility for administration and the day-to-day running of the business. He was the only one in charge. There was also a CEO, Mr Cullinan, but he was not involved in daily operations.
10. The applicant raised most of his queries about late wages and superannuation contributions directly with the second respondent. The second respondent had told him about the first delay in wages being paid, indicated he was aware of the later wage defaults, explained why they occurred, and stated that he was involved in attempting to rectify them.
11. The second respondent explained to the applicant that they, meaning Mr Cullinan and him, were working through a backlog. In response to him raising the option of going to the ATO, the applicant was told by the second respondent that they would rather he delayed that action, "so they can get a proper set of finances back on track."[1]
12. The second respondent indicated he would not authorise payments to be made unless "cash flow" was satisfactory. The applicant was not given clarity, but most delays were resolved within two to three days on the following week. Some took much longer. The second respondent told the applicant he would put in more effort to communicate when wage payments were going to be delayed. Communications to this effect improved in mid-2025.
13. The applicant was initially told by the second respondent and his subordinate, Mr Rock, that the delays were caused by a bank, and later that they were caused by cash flow issues.
14. The second respondent wrote to the applicant on 11 September 2025 about outstanding entitlements, stating: "our aim" was of paying arrears by a certain date; and "...as we work towards a large payment to the ATO."
15. A witness statement from another former employee, Laurence Bradley, did not deal with the role of the second respondent in the late payments of wages and superannuation contributions.
16. The respondents submit the regrettable late wage payments were due to client related cash flow shortfalls. This followed the loss of large contracts while retaining required staff for future contracts, after a period of rapid growth.

1. The first issue is whether s 536 was contravened by the practice of paying wages two to five days after issuing a payslip.
2. The unambiguous fact is that on these payment occasions no payslip was given by Pernix "within one working day of paying an amount to the employee in relation to the performance of work." The only possible defence is that the earlier provision of a payslip, with or without any associated communication that wages will not be paid as indicated, satisfies this obligation. In my opinion, the plain words of the provision suggest these circumstances do not satisfy the obligation.
3. The evident purpose of the provision is to align a payment of wages to an employee for the performance of work with the corresponding payslip, thereby providing an explanation of the pay components, and facilitating checking. That purpose is not met by the present circumstances.
4. I conclude the practice was not compliant with s 536. Providing a payslip within one working day of paying an amount is the obligation. That is not satisfied by providing a payslip separated by more than one day from a payment of wages. I conclude the provision was contravened on each occasion payment was made more than one day after the corresponding payslip was provided.
5. The next issue is the second respondent's alleged involvement in each contravention. The applicant is relying on s 550(2)(c). He asserts the second respondent was at least knowingly concerned in each contravention.
6. The meaning of s 550(2)(c) has been authoritatively explained by White J in Fair Work Ombudsman v Devine Marine Group Pty Ltd as follows:[2]

The notion of being "knowingly concerned" in a contravention has a different emphasis from that of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring" a contravention. To be knowingly concerned in a contravention, the person must have engaged in some act or conduct which "implicates or involves him or her" in the contravention so that there be a "practical connection between" the person and the contravention: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke [2007] FCAFC 87; (2007) 164 IR 299 at [26]; Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia [2011] FCA 470; (2011) 280 ALR 503 at [324]- [325].

1. I note that the second respondent's role in resolving all late payments does not imply he was involved in each of them occurring.
2. However, the second respondent's knowledge of the unpaid entitlements, his most senior operational position, his authority, and his role in allocating Pernix's financial resources to payment of these entitlements, are consistent with the allegations of his knowing involvement.
3. As Pernix's decisions about allocation of financial resources to employee obligations resulted in the wage and superannuation contraventions, I infer the second respondent was practically implicated in or involved in making the late payment decisions.
4. Regarding the failure to give timely payslips for delayed wage payments, I find the second respondent had knowledge of the applicant's wage payments being regularly made well after the payslip's payment dates and without any fresh payslip. I find he told the applicant he would try to rectify the ongoing situation. I find he had the authority to provide payslips within one working day of payments. Whether or not the second respondent was aware of the one working day payslip requirement is immaterial as he had knowledge of and was practically implicated in the payments being made without a timely payslip.
5. I conclude the second respondent was knowingly involved in the late wages, late superannuation contributions, and the payslip contraventions, within the meaning of s 550.
6. I conclude the second respondent was knowingly involved in the late superannuation, late wages and payslip contraventions.
7. The penalty applications against both respondents will be listed for hearing and determination.

[2] [2014] FCA 1365 at [178].