find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and accessorial liability: the legal profession in the crosshairs?

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and accessorial liability: the legal profession in the crosshairs?

Daniel Proietto

At a recent seminar hosted by Lander & Rogers, Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James cautioned that advisers, including lawyers, are in her sights under section 550 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the accessorial liability provision, write Daniel Proietto and Cassie Brain.

The Fair Work Ombudsman's message was clear to the legal profession: synonymous with ethical obligations under the uniform rules, lawyers must be clear on the advice provided to clients, that advice must comply with the law and a lawyer's actions must be consistent with the advice provided.

Lawyers could contravene the accessorial liability provision in circumstances when either:

1. A lawyer knowingly provides advice in breach of the FW Act; or
2. A person or company does not heed the lawyer's advice regarding compliance with the FW Act and notwithstanding this, the lawyer remains involved in advising that person or company on the matter concerning the non-compliance.
The former situation is reasonably self-explanatory and could occur in the following situations, for example a lawyer:

• being knowingly involved in the preparation or provision of false employee records; or
• giving advice on applicable rates of pay which fall below the minimum standards (noting that advice which is merely incorrect or even negligent is unlikely to lead to a claim — the lawyer would need to have actual knowledge of, or wilful blindness to, the breach); or
• advising a client to dismiss an employee and re-engage them as an independent contractor in breach of the sham contracting provisions of the FW Act.
Essentially, the Fair Work Ombudsman's guidance for advisers boils down to: “Don't involve yourself in a breach of the law. If you do find yourself in this situation, then you should step out of that scenario.”

But what happens when a person or company doesn't heed your advice and yet you remain involved in advising them in relation to the matter involving the non-compliance? Under the FW Act, a lawyer could be an accessory if (among other things) a person “has been in any way by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the contraventions. This definition of involvement is potentially far-reaching.

In our view, it is unlikely (although obviously not impossible) that an external lawyer advising clients might be caught by the second example of accessorial liability. However, the risk is greater for in-house lawyers given that they generally have a closer understanding of, and connection to, their company's business.

Further, because of the imbalance of power between employee and employer, in-house lawyers may find themselves in a difficult position if, despite their advice, their employer engages in conduct that constitutes a breach of the FW Act. What would the Ombudsman expect a lawyer to do in this scenario? If they are aware of the ongoing breach and remain in the company, could they be found to be an accessory even if they advised against the unlawful conduct?

The Fair Work Ombudsman is yet to prosecute a lawyer as an accessory, so it is currently uncharted territory. Also, the outcome will generally depend on the circumstances in each particular case. And while the Fair Work Ombudsman has prosecuted accountants, human resource advisors and payroll companies as accessories to a FW Act contravention, none of the cases prosecuted so far really address the more complex questions noted above.

What is clear, however, is that the Fair Work Ombudsman is pushing the envelope on who is an accessory to a contravention and how involved they may be in that contravention. As Natalie James often says, Workplace compliance is everybody’s business, and the accessorial liability provision will continue to be tested to the full extent to see how far it will reach. Lawyers will not be immune.


By Daniel Proietto, head of workplace relations and safety and Cassie Brain, special counsel - Workplace Relations & Safety, Lander & Rogers

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and accessorial liability: the legal profession in the crosshairs?
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Oct 20 2017
Podcast: One of law’s most infamous alumni – in conversation with Julian Morrow
In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, Melissa Coade is joined by The Chaser’s Julian Morrow....
Oct 20 2017
High Court overturns ‘excessive’ anti-protest legislation
Bob Brown’s recent victory in the High Court over the Tasmanian government was a win for fundament...
Oct 20 2017
Changes to Australian citizenship laws blocked
Attempts to beef up the requirements to obtain Australian citizenship were thwarted this week, after...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...