Adelaide business underpaid worker employed as apprentice without training contract

An Adelaide business has been ordered to pay a worker almost $13,000 after it employed him as an apprentice without providing training.

A fencing business who paid a landscaper “illegal rates of pay” as an apprentice, without offering the required training, has been ordered to repay the worker for lost earnings.

Todd Bowes lodged action against Active Fencing and Retaining Pty Ltd in the South Australian Employment Court, over claims he was not paid correct wages, superannuation or leave entitlements.

He began working for the fencing business in May 2022 in an apprentice position but was never given the promised training contract required to be able to pay apprentice rates.

He was also told he must arrive at work sites 15 minutes prior to his rostered shift start for no pay and was paid annual leave instead of sick pay on some of the days he was ill.

In a ruling handed down by the court, deputy president Stephen Lieschke ordered the business pay Mr Bowes a total of $12,674.74 for the unpaid wages, overtime, superannuation compensation, annual leave, personal leave as well as interest.

The court ordered Active Fencing and Retaining to pay its former worker Todd Bowes almost $13,000 in unpaid wages. Picture: File

He said Mr Bowes was “fobbed off” on each occasion he asked about his training contract after he was employed full-time as an apprentice, to be paid $16.33 per hour. After being rejected a final time, in October 2022, Mr Bowes quit.

“He could not continue working for unlawful rates of pay,” Mr Lieschke said.

He said the business’ principal Martin Mucha had “continued to disregard the applicant’s correct complaint that he was being paid below the award minimum (for any classification)” and for “failing to advance the promised contract of training”.

“The applicant was placed in the position of being required to work for illegal rates of pay,” Mr Lieschke said.

He said Mr Bowes had approached his union who wrote three letters over three months seeking documents, including pay slips, from the business.

They never received a response despite the final letter warning legal action would follow.

Mr Lieschke said he accepted Mr Bowes’ “clear and consistent” evidence.

He said Mr Mucha had sent an email to the court saying he intended to respond further but never did. He also did not attend at the court.

Mr Lieschke said apprentice or trainee rates could only be paid after a contract of training recognised by the South Australian Skills Act had started and that Mr Bowes “should always have been paid minimum adult rates” instead of the apprentice wage he was paid.