the Applicant v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd (No 2)
Citation: [2013] FCA 1146
At a glance
- Penalty
- $106,500
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked for Betezy companies from 2009 to 2011 as a sales representative on commission-based arrangements. The companies failed to pay her contractual monthly commissions and normal salary. In late October 2011, the Applicant's employment was suspended and pay ceased entirely. The companies also failed to provide pay slips and failed to pay superannuation on commissions earned. the Applicant brought proceedings claiming unpaid wages, superannuation shortfalls, compensation for suspension, and penalties for breaching workplace rights.
What was decided
The court found the Respondents contravened section 323 (underpayment of wages and commissions) repeatedly, section 340 (adverse action through threat of dismissal and unauthorised suspension), and section 536 (failure to provide pay slips). The first Respondent was ordered to pay $106,776.95 in unpaid commissions, $27,816.46 interest, and $12,113.41 superannuation, plus penalties totalling $52,000. The second Respondent paid $170,224.17 in unpaid commissions, $39,084.27 interest, $18,837.76 superannuation, $37,557.76 compensation for suspension, and penalties totalling $54,500.
What it means for employers
Employers must pay commissions when due under employment contracts and provide superannuation on all remuneration. Suspending employees and ceasing pay without proper process triggers adverse action liability. Failure to provide pay slips breaches fundamental record-keeping obligations and attracts penalties.
What it means for employees
Employees on commission-based pay have rights to timely payment of commissions earned and superannuation contributions. Suspension without proper procedures and loss of pay may constitute adverse action providing grounds for compensation beyond lost wages.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca1146Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →