2024 WAIRC 00061
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA


CITATION : 2024 WAIRC 00061

CORAM : INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE D. SCADDAN

HEARD : THURSDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2024

DELIVERED : FRIDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2024

FILE NO. : M 79 OF 2023

BETWEEN : BRIAN EDWARD RAVENSCROFT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES, INDUSTRY REGULATION AND SAFETY
CLAIMANT

AND

ALI DEMIRCI
RESPONDENT

CatchWords : INDUSTRIAL LAW – Assessment of pecuniary penalties for contravention of section 102(1)(a) of Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) - Failure to comply with notice to produce records – Order for employment records
Legislation : Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)
Industrial Magistrate’s Court (General Jurisdiction) Regulations 2005 (WA)
Instrument : Restaurant, Tearoom and Catering Workers’ Award 1979
Case(s) referred
to in reasons: : Callan v Smith [2021] WAIRC 00216; 101 WAIG 1155
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; 274 CLR 450
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd [No2] [2012] WASC 27
NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134; 71 FCR 285.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 557
Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080; 166 IR 14
Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Limited [1990] FCA 762, (1991) ATPR 41-076
Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1585; 177 IR 306
The Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; 258 CLR 482
Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8; 165 FCR 560
Result : Civil penalty paid, and other orders made
Representation:


Claimant : Ms M. Christie (of counsel) as instructed by the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety
Respondent : Ms R. Reid (of counsel) as instructed by Appius Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
1 On 5 July 2023, the claimant, an Industrial Inspector employed by the then Department of Mines, Industry, Regulation and Safety (the Department), commenced a claim pursuant to s 83E of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) (IR Act) in respect of two alleged contraventions of s 102(1)(a) of the IR Act.
2 The respondent is in charge of and operates a business in partnership with others which trades as ‘The Kebab Place’ at the Alexander Heights Shopping Centre with ABN 33 538 189 774 (the Business). As the name suggests, the Business is a takeaway and café providing, amongst other things, kebabs, and other food. The Business has employees who are employed by the partnership (the Employer).
3 The claimant issued two notices to produce employment records pursuant to s 98(3)(e) of the IR Act as part of a proactive compliance inspection to ascertain whether the Employer was compliant with the relevant industrial award, the Restaurant, Tearoom and Catering Workers’ Award 1979 (the Award).
4 Following a pre-trial conference, the claimant discontinued part of the claim with the resultant allegation confined to the respondent’s failure to comply with a second notice to produce records issued pursuant to s 98(3)(e) of the IR Act, personally served on the respondent on 5 December 2022 (NTP2).
5 The claimant alleged the respondent failed to comply with NTP2 by failing to provide to the Department the specified employment records relating to the period of 1 July 2022 to 21 November 2022 by 12 December 2022 or at all. This failure contravenes s 102(1)(a) of the IR Act.
6 The respondent admits he did not comply with NTP2 by 12 December 2022 and in failing to do so, admits he contravened s 102(1)(a) of the IR Act. The respondent says he instructed the Business’s accountant to provide the specified employment records and he believed the instruction would be followed.
Penalty and Orders Sought
7 The claimant now seeks the following:
7.1 pursuant to s 83E(1)(b) of the IR Act, the respondent pays to the claimant a penalty not exceeding $13,000 for the contravention of s 102(1)(a) of the IR Act;
7.2 pursuant to s 83E(11) of the IR Act, the respondent pays to the claimant disbursements incurred by the claimant in relation to the proceedings;
7.3 pursuant to s 83E(2) of the IR Act, an order requiring the respondent to provide to the claimant ‘employment records’ “Employment Records” includes records referred to in Schedule III of these reasons.
for all employees employed at The Kebab Place at any time during the relevant period (whether or not the employees are still employed at The Kebab Place at the end of the period), within 14 days of the end of each of the following periods:
(i) 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023;
(ii) 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2023;
(iii) 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024; and
(iv) 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024.
8 The respondent admits he is liable to pay a penalty and disbursements to the claimant and to provide employment records but seeks an extension of time to provide to the claimant the employment records sought.
9 Schedule I of these reasons outline the jurisdiction, standard of proof, practice, and procedure of the Court in determining this case.
10 Schedule II of these reasons outline the provisions of the IR Act and principles relevant in determining an appropriate civil penalty (if any) for the respondent’s contravention.
The Claimant’s Submission on Penalty
11 The claimant submits the IR Act:
[R]equires employers to keep time and wages records and make those available for inspection to ensure that employees are paid their entitlements. The failure to produce employment records when requested by industrial inspectors makes it difficult or even impossible to determine whether an employer has complied with their obligations under the Act and the relevant award and prevents industrial inspectors from carrying out investigations and taking any appropriate enforcement action on behalf of employees. (footnotes omitted)
12 The primary purpose of a civil penalty is to promote the public interest in compliance with the law, which is achieved by imposing a penalty that is sufficiently high to ensure both specific and general deterrence.
13 In respect of specific deterrence, the claimant submits the respondent has not previously contravened a civil penalty provision under the IR Act. However, the claimant further submits the respondent did not comply with NTP2 until 31 October 2023, some 10 months after the time frame for production in NTP2 and four months after the commencement of these proceedings. While the respondent may have instructed the Business’s accountant to provide the employment records, the respondent has a duty to ensure the employment records were produced and could not discharge this duty in the manner he did so. The respondent must have been aware upon the commencement of these proceedings that the employment records had not been provided, and compliance with NTP2 did not occur in a timely manner.
14 In respect of general deterrence, the claimant submits cafés and restaurants are identified as having higher likelihood of systemic and deliberate underpayment of wages and entitlements, as well as noncompliance with employment obligations. The issuance of NTP2 was part of a proactive compliance campaign by the Department in those sectors, and any penalty should emphasise the importance of cooperating with industrial inspectors and deter other employers from not complying with similar requirements under the IR Act.
15 The claimant accepts the starting point for any penalty is at the lower end of the scale but says the penalty ought to be meaningful to address specific and general deterrence.
The Respondent’s Submission on Penalty
16 The respondent submits that with his partners C Demirci, K Karakuyu and D Karakuyu the Business began trading on 15 July 2020. In October 2022, the original partnership in the Business changed to comprise the respondent, C Demirci, N Karakuyu and A Dogan. The Business is a small, familyowned, and operated kebab business trading as a dine in/takeaway service opening seven days a week from 9.30 am to 9.30 pm. The Business generally employs approximately five employees, due to a downturn.
17 The respondent submits he delivered NTP2 to the Business accountant with instructions to provide the documents as requested, with the reasonable belief his instructions would be followed. As a person with limited ability in English, he relied significantly on his accountant to organise and oversee the administrative side of the Business. However, he accepts that it was ultimately his responsibility to ensure this was done.
18 The respondent accepts that neither he, nor his partners, followed up with the Business accountant to ensure the requested documents had been provided. The respondent says they have never been served with such a request and he did not understand the intention of the request and associated potential consequences of failing to provide the documents in a timely manner. Once the respondent became aware (by virtue of the commencement of these proceedings) that the documents had not been provided to the Department, he immediately contacted the Business accountant and was advised to seek legal advice, which he did on 13 July 2023. The respondent gave instructions for the respondent’s solicitor to provide a copy of NTP2, together with the required documents sought, to the Business accountant on 7 August 2023. On 31 August 2023, the respondent contacted the respondent’s solicitor to ascertain whether the Business accountant had provided the requested documents. It was confirmed the Business accountant had not, and a further request for the documents was made on 1 September 2023.
19 Between 7 September 2023 and 12 October 2023, the respondent says he provided as many documents as he could to his solicitor’s office, in preparation for complete delivery to the claimant’s solicitor. On 13 October 2023, the respondent’s solicitor received a wages statement prepared by the Business accountant, detailing only employees for one requested period, being 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022. A further request by the respondent’s solicitor was made to produce a wages statement for the periods 1 July 2022 to 30 September 2022; 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022; 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023; and 1 April 2023 to 30 June 2023. After seeking legal advice, together with conferral with the claimant’s solicitors at the PreTrial Conference on 17 October 2023, it was agreed the claimant would discontinue part of the claim, and the respondent would thereafter admit to contravening NTP2. Pursuant to orders made by the Registrar at the Pre-Trial Conference on 17 October 2023, all the available collated documents were provided to the claimant’s solicitor on 30 October 2023.
20 In respect of his personal circumstances, the respondent submits he is 48 years of age and immigrated to Australia from Turkey in 1998. He became an Australian citizen in 2001. English is the respondent’s second language, and he describes his verbal, written and comprehension skills as poor. The respondent is in good physical health but has suffered anxiety and depression associated with these legal proceedings. The respondent is married with three children. He works long hours, six days per week.
21 The respondent accepts the Business is in a highrisk sector for noncompliance with the various industrial laws. He also accepts the contravention continued for approximately 10 months, potentially characterising the contravention in the lowmoderate range.
22 However, the respondent takes the contravention seriously and he did not fully appreciate the obligations to comply with NTP2. To date, the respondent has not received any complaints from employees concerning underpayment of wages or non-compliance with entitlements.
23 The respondent is remorseful, Respondent’s letter of apology.
and he is better informed of his obligations and the important role of the Department in ensuring compliance by employers to protect entitlements of employees.
24 The respondent’s failure to comply with NTP2 was not a deliberate attempt to avoid or obstruct the claimant, nor was it a wilful defiance of the law. It was borne of an undue reliance on another, but he takes full responsibility for his omission.
25 The respondent is otherwise of good character and relies upon two character references provided to the court.
26 The respondent has personal debts of a home mortgage of $734,824 and to the Australian Taxation Office of $19,796.
27 In all the circumstances, the respondent says notwithstanding the general principles associated with the imposition of a civil penalty, specific deterrence is less important where it is unlikely the respondent will contravene the IR Act again, his willingness to comply with court orders (as it relates to the provision of employment records sought) and this is the first such contravention. The respondent further says that any penalty ought not to be financially crushing to a small family operated business.
Determination
28 The following considerations are significant in assessing the penalty in this case:
Nature and extent of conduct and the circumstances in which it occurred
29 There is one contravention of failing to provide employment records required by NTP2. Compliance with NTP2 did not occur until 31 October 2023, some 10 months after it was served on the respondent and approximately four months after these proceedings were commenced.
30 The respondent accepts his culpability with respect to the failure to provide the employment records, but notably this is not a case where the respondent did nothing and the employment records were provided after the discontinuance of part of the claimant’s claim. The respondent’s failure was in not following up on his instructions to the Business accountant to provide the employment records and the associated delay in providing the employment records, noting the respondent accepts it was his duty to comply with NTP2.
31 The effect of noncompliance or delay in compliance is that it deprives the claimant of an opportunity to identify if any employees have been underpaid wages or entitlements, and to take swift remedial action.
Nature and extent of any loss or damage sustained
32 No loss or damage has been identified referrable to the claimant or any employee, although the contravention deprives the claimant of a timely opportunity to ascertain whether the respondent was compliant with any industrial law obligations.
Similar conduct
33 There is no indication the respondent has previously contravened a civil penalty provision under the IR Act.
One course of conduct?
34 There is one contravention. This factor is neutral.
The size of the business enterprise involved
35 The Business is a small family run dinein/take away kebab business. The Full Bench of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Callan v Smith [2021] WAIRC 00216; 101 WAIG 1155 found that the size of the business should not weigh in favour of diminishing a penalty that would otherwise be assessed. However, as noted in Pattinson (Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13; 274 CLR 450):
[I]n some cases, the circumstances of the contravenor may be more significant in terms of the extent of the necessity for deterrence than the circumstances of the contravention. In this regard, it is simply undeniable that, all other things being equal, a greater financial incentive will be necessary to persuade a wellresourced contravenor to abide by the law rather than to adhere to its preferred policy than will be necessary to persuade a poorly resourced contravenor that its unlawful policy preference is not sustainable [60].
Deliberateness of contraventions
36 While the respondent did not comply with NTP2 in a timely manner, as already noted this is not a case where he did nothing. Again, as already stated, the respondent’s failure was, in part, associated with his reliance upon a third party and failing to ensure he or others followed up on the instructions given to a third party. The respondent now professes to have a better understanding of the obligation for compliance.
Corrective action, contrition, and cooperation
37 The respondent complied with NTP2 in late October 2023, after the commencement of proceedings. The respondent has expressed remorse for the contravention. The respondent has participated in these proceedings in a timely manner and made appropriate admissions to the contravention.
38 The respondent has expressed a willingness to comply with future orders of the court as it relates to the provision of employment records sought by the claimant.
Specific and general deterrence
39 Considering the above, considerations of punishment and specific deterrence are somewhat less important in this case than the need to deter other employers from not complying with notices to produce issued by the Department, undermining the functions of industrial inspectors in ensuring compliance with industrial laws, and identifying contraventions in a timely manner.
40 The contravention in all the circumstances is properly categorised in the low range.
Financial position of the respondent
41 The respondent has financial obligations, including a mortgage and a debt to the Australian Taxation Office, however, he has capacity to pay a penalty.
Civil Penalty Order
42 For these reasons a penalty fixed in the sum of $2,500 is a penalty of what is reasonably necessary to deter further contraventions of a like kind by primarily other employers but also to a lesser extent by the respondent.
43 Pursuant to s 83F(2) of the IR Act, payment of the civil penalty of $2,500 is to be to the Treasurer.
Other Orders
44 As set out in paragraph [7.3], the claimant seeks an order for the provision of employment records, with the particular records identified in Schedule III.
45 The respondent requests further time for the compliance.
46 Having regard to the nature and extent of the employment records sought, I accept the respondent may require some further time to provide the specified records to the claimant, although I note the respondent has had notice of their provision by virtue of the orders sought.
47 Accordingly, pursuant to s 83E(2) of the IR Act, the respondent is to provide to the claimant employment records for all employees employed at The Kebab Place at any time during the relevant period (whether or not the employees are still employed at The Kebab Place at the end of the period), for each of the following periods within 30 days of the date of this order:
(i) 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023; and
(ii) 1 October 2023 to 31 December 2023.
48 Further, pursuant to s 83E(2) of the IR Act, the respondent is to provide to the claimant employment records for all employees employed at The Kebab Place at any time during the relevant period (whether or not the employees are still employed at The Kebab Place at the end of the period), for each of the following periods within 21 days of the final date of the period sought:
(i) 1 January 2024 to 31 March 2024; and
(ii) 1 April 2024 to 30 June 2024.
49 The specified employment records for each period are contained in Schedule III of these reasons.
Costs
50 The respondent is to pay the claimant’s disbursements fixed in the amount of $143.


D. SCADDAN
INDUSTRIAL MAGISTRATE

Schedule I: Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure of the Industrial Magistrates Court (WA)
Jurisdiction
[1] The Industrial Magistrates Court (WA) (IMC or ‘the Court’), has the jurisdiction conferred by the IR Act and other legislation. Section 83E of the IR Act confers jurisdiction on the IMC to impose a pecuniary penalty if a person contravenes a civil penalty provision.
[2] Section 102(3) of the IR Act provides that s 102(1) of the IR Act is a civil penalty provision.
Burden and standard of proof
[3] The standard of proof to be applied in determining whether there has been a contravention of a civil penalty provision is the standard observed in civil proceedings: s 83E(8) of the IR Act.
[4] In the context of an allegation of the breach of a civil penalty provision of the IR Act it is also relevant to recall the observation of Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336:
The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences (362).
[5] Where in this decision it is stated that a finding has been made, the finding is made on the balance of probabilities. Where it is stated that a finding has not been made or cannot be made, then no finding can be made on the balance of probabilities.
Practice and Procedure of the Industrial Magistrates Court
[6] The procedure of the IMC is contained in s 81CA(5)(7a) and (8) of the IR Act and in the Industrial Magistrate’s Court (General Jurisdiction) Regulations 2005 (WA) (IMC Regulations).
[7] Relevantly, the IMC is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter and in any manner as it thinks fit: reg 35(4) of the IMC Regulations.
[8] In Sammut v AVM Holdings Pty Ltd [No2] [2012] WASC 27, Commissioner Sleight examined a similarly worded provision regulating the conduct of proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal and made the following observation:
40 The tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself in such a manner as it thinks appropriate. This does not mean that the rules of evidence are to be ignored. The more flexible procedure provided for does not justify decisions made without a basis in evidence having probative force. The drawing of an inference without evidence is an error of law. Similarly, such error is shown when the tribunal bases its conclusion on its own view of a matter which requires evidence. (citations omitted)

Schedule II Pecuniary Penalty Orders under the IR Act
Pecuniary Penalty Orders
[1] Section 83E(1) of the IR Act provides the IMC may make an order imposing a pecuniary penalty on a person if the person contravenes a civil penalty provision.
[2] Section 83E(1)(a) of the IR Act provides the maximum penalty in the case of a body corporate and relevant to a contravention which is not a serious contravention, the maximum penalty is $65,000. If the contravention is a serious contravention, the maximum penalty is $650,000.
[3] Section 83E(1)(b) of the IR Act provides the maximum penalty in the case of an individual and relevant to a contravention which is not a serious contravention, the maximum penalty is $13,000. If the contravention is a serious contravention, the maximum penalty is $130,000.
[4] Except as provided in subsections (6a) and (7A), an application for an order under s 83E may be made by: (a) a person directly affected by the contravention or, if that person is a represented person, the person’s representative; (b) an organisation or association of which a person who comes within paragraph (a) is a member; (c) the Registrar or deputy registrar; or (d) an industrial inspector.
[5] In Pattinson, the plurality confirmed that civil penalties ‘are not retributive, but rather are protective of the public interest in that they aim to secure compliance by deterring repeat contraventions’ [40]. However, ‘insistence upon the deterrent quality of a penalty should be balanced by insistence that it “not be so high as to be oppressive”’ [40], citing NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134; 71 FCR 285.
[6] While the civil penalty referred to in Pattinson was under s 546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the principles in the decision are clearly applicable to civil penalties under the IR Act (noting the absence of the word ‘appropriate’ in s 83E of the IR Act) and have been applied in other State jurisdictions to civil penalties in industrial and other laws.
[7] The purpose served by civil penalties was described by Katzmann J in Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 557 at [388] in the following terms:
In contrast to the criminal law, however, where, in sentencing, retribution and rehabilitation are also relevant, the primary, if not the only, purpose of a civil penalty is to promote the public interest in compliance with the law. This is achieved by imposing penalties that are sufficiently high to deter the wrongdoer from engaging in similar conduct in the future (specific deterrence) and to deter others who might be tempted to contravene (general deterrence). The penalty for each contravention or course of conduct is to be no more and no less than is necessary for that purpose. (citations omitted)
[8] In Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080; 166 IR 14 at [14], Tracey J adopted the following ‘nonexhaustive range of considerations to which regard may be had in determining whether particular conduct calls for the imposition of a penalty, and if it does the amount of the penalty’ which had been set out by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 [24]:
The nature and extent of the conduct which led to the breaches.
The circumstances in which that conduct took place.
The nature and extent of any loss or damage sustained as a result of the breaches.
Whether there had been similar previous conduct by the respondent.
Whether the breaches were properly distinct or arose out of the one course of conduct.
The size of the business enterprise involved.
Whether or not the breaches were deliberate.
Whether senior management was involved in the breaches.
Whether the party committing the breach had exhibited contrition.
Whether the party committing the breach had taken corrective action.
Whether the party committing the breach had cooperated with the enforcement authorities.
The need to ensure compliance with minimum standards by provision of an effective means for investigation and enforcement of employee entitlements and
The need for specific and general deterrence.
[9] Similar principles have been identified in Trade Practices Commission v CSR Limited [1990] FCA 762 [42]; (1991) ATPR 41-076; Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1585 [64]; 177 IR 306; and Callan v Smith.
[10] The list is not ‘a rigid catalogue of matters for attention. At the end of the day the task of the Court is to fix a penalty which pays appropriate regard to the circumstances in which the contraventions have occurred and the need to sustain public confidence in the statutory regime which imposes the obligations.’ (Buchanan J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 [91]; 165 FCR 560).
[11] Although these factors provide useful guidance, the task of assessing the appropriate penalty is not an exact science: The Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46 [47]; 258 CLR 482. The Court must ultimately fix a penalty that pays appropriate regard to the contraventions that have occurred: Pattinson at [19]. A court empowered (by s 546) to impose an [appropriate] penalty must act fairly and reasonably for the purpose of protecting the public interest by deterring future contraventions [of the Act]: Pattinson at [48].
[12] The totality of the penalty must be re-assessed in light of the totality of the offending behaviour. If the resulting penalty is disproportionately harsh, it may be necessary to reduce the penalty for individual contraventions. Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 [47] – [52]; 165 FCR 560.
Costs
[13] In proceedings under s 83E of the IR Act, costs must not be given to any party to the proceedings for the services of a legal practitioner or agent unless: (a) the IMC finds that the other party has committed a serious contravention; or (b) in the IMC’s opinion, the proceedings have been frivolously or vexatiously instituted or defended (as relevant): s 83E(12) of the IR Act.
Payment of Costs and Penalties
[14] Where the IMC by an order under s 83E of the IR Act imposes a penalty or costs, the IMC must state in the order: (a) the name of the person liable to pay the penalty or costs; and (b) the name of the person to whom the penalty is, or costs are, payable: s 83F(1) of the IR Act.
[15] An IMC imposing a penalty by order under s 83E of the IR Act may order that the amount of the penalty, or part of that amount, be paid to: (a) a person directly affected by the conduct to which the contravention relates; (b) the applicant; or (c) the Treasurer: s 83F(2) of the IR Act.
[16] In making an order for payment to a person directly affected by the conduct to which the contravention relates, the court must consider any other compensation that the person has received or is likely to receive in respect of the conduct concerned: s 83F(3) of the IR Act.

Schedule III Employment Records Sought
“Employment Records” means the following:
[1] A list of all employees employed at The Kebab Place including:
a) Full name;
b) Date of birth for any employees under 21 years of age;
c) Mobile phone number; and
d) Email address.
[2] For each employee employed at The Kebab Place:
a) The date they commenced employment with the business;
b) Employment status (full time, part time or casual);
c) Employee’s classification and job description;
d) Records of all hours worked (including work performed on weekends), such as time and wages records, timecards or rosters detailing –
· Total hours worked each week;
· The start and finish times of the employees each day; and
· Meal breaks taken;
e) The gross and net amounts paid for each pay period during the period under review, and all deductions and the reasons for them;
f) Pay records for each pay period, such as payroll reports or payslips;
g) Bank records detailing the payment of wages to employees via electronic funds transfer (EFT); and
h) The records of all annual and sick leave taken (amounts and when taken) and any periods of unpaid leave.