Skip to main content
FWOFair Work Ombudsman · 21 March 2022

Fair Work Ombudsman

Citation: FWO-2022-03-24-qd-dinh-litigation-media-release

At a glance

Respondent
Quang Dung Dinh trading as a residential building and construction services business
Penalty
$6,660
Employees affected
1
Awards cited
MA000063

What happened

The Fair Work Ombudsman commenced legal action against the Respondent, a Melbourne-based sole trader who operates a residential building and construction services business. An investigation began after a worker sought assistance, alleging he was underpaid between January and February 2021. A Fair Work Inspector issued a Compliance Notice in August 2021, believing the worker was paid an hourly rate of $20.71 for some hours and not paid for others, resulting in underpayment of minimum wage, overtime, and penalty rates. The Respondent allegedly failed to comply with the Compliance Notice.

What was decided

The Fair Work Ombudsman is seeking a penalty against the Respondent for failing to comply with the Compliance Notice. He faces a potential penalty of up to $6,660. The FWO also seeks an order for him to calculate and rectify any underpayments, including superannuation and interest. A directions hearing is scheduled for April 2022 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court.

What it means for employers

Employers must comply with Compliance Notices issued by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties and orders to back-pay entitlements, plus superannuation and interest. Employers should review their payroll practices to ensure compliance with relevant awards and legislation.

What it means for employees

Employees who believe they have been underpaid or are concerned about their entitlements should contact the Fair Work Ombudsman for free advice and assistance. The Fair Work Infoline is available for support.

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.

underpaymentpenalty-ratesgeneral-protectionsmodern-award-variationcompliance

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/2022-media-releases/march-2022/20220324-qd-dinh-litigation-media-release

Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

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

All cases