Of the 891 businesses audited:
- 618 (69%) businesses were compliant with all requirements.
- 273 (31%) businesses had at least one error:
- 119 (14%) related to pay slips/records
- 107 (12%) related to pay rates
- 47 (5%) related to both pay rates and pay slips/records.
Figure 1: Campaign compliance rates
This means that:
- 737 (83%) businesses were now paying their employees correctly
- 725 (81%) businesses were now compliant with record-keeping and pay slip requirements
- 71% of the 273 non-compliant businesses were subject to enforcement action
- $207 990 was recovered on behalf of 485 employees.
Campaign results by State and Territory can be found in Appendix A.
The results reveal the positive impact the FWO is having with businesses in assisting them to meet their workplace obligations. 618 (69%) businesses were now fully compliant and meeting all of their obligations under Australian workplace laws. Many of these businesses are small businesses that often do not have the benefit of dedicated Human Resources or payroll staff. Having made changes to their systems and processes to become compliant, this allows them to focus on other important areas of their business. After implementing these changes, there are generally only minor changes that periodically need to be amended when changes to pay rates and other obligations occur. Many businesses are now using the free resources provided by the FWO to do this, and have built these updates automatically into the ongoing running of their business.
Whilst 31% of businesses were found to be non-compliant, many of those businesses had made efforts to comply after their initial interaction with the FWO.
Where businesses were found to be non-compliant, Fair Work Inspectors considered the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance. Enforcement action was taken where:
- Businesses did not make efforts to comply.
- Businesses had major errors remaining (whether compliance was attempted or not).
- The non-compliance was similar or the same as the previous audit.
Enforcement action was considered, but not taken where:
- The business had changed ownership since the previous audit and the non-compliance was not significant
- Businesses were able to show clear evidence of having attempted to comply, however still had a minor error
- The non-compliance was minor, of a technical nature, and did not result in employees being underpaid.