Company fined $30k for age-based termination threat

EWIN HANNAN
APRIL 08, 2014
THE AUSTRALIAN
A QUEENSLAND restaurant worker who was told he would be sacked on his 65th birthday has been awarded $10,000 in compensation and the restaurant’s operators fined almost $30,000.
The case is the first time the federal workplace watchdog, the Fair Work Ombudsman, has taken legal action against a company on the basis of age discrimination.
After raising questions about his pay, Cheng Peng Lee was informed by his employers that it was company policy to sack workers once they reached retirement age.
The company, Theravanish Investments, operate Thai restaurants on the Gold Coast.
A letter from the company accountant said it was “the policy of the company that we do not employ any staff that attain the retirement age, which in your case is 65 years”.
Mr Lee, 64-years-old at the time, had worked full time for the company for 15 years until taking long-service leave. After returning from leave to part-time work in 2011 and questioning his pay rate, he was told he would be terminated.
In his written response, Mr Lee said termination of his employment was “irrefutably an act of blatant discrimination”.
“It must be pointed out, my effectiveness as a food and beverage attendant when I turn 65 is no less than my effectiveness at the age of 64,’’ he said.
After the company stood firm, Mr Lee lodged a complaint with the FWO. The Federal Circuit Court fined the company and its owners $29,150 for contraventions of age discrimination and record-keeping laws. The company has been fined $20,790, and its joint directors and equal shareholders, Nopporn Theravanish and Michael Theravanish, have also been penalised a further $4180 each.
They operate two Thai restaurants at Broadbeach and Surfers Paradise, and previously operated restaurants at Nobby Beach and Robina.
Judge Michael Burnett ordered Theravanish Investments to pay $10,000 compensation to Mr Lee.
Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James said discrimination against employees on the grounds of age was unlawful and the outcome of the case served as a warning to employers that age discrimination would not be tolerated.
“Limiting employment opportunities of workers because of their age is totally unacceptable and we take such conduct very seriously because of the impact it has on individual workers and the labour market generally,’’ Ms James said.