Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Firm takes finance company to court over COVID-19 attacks

While COVID-19 financial schemes tried to keep people employed, it also sparked concerns that some employers would use it for the worst. One law firm is proving just that in a landmark case alleging a Victorian finance company overstepped.

user iconNaomi Neilson 12 June 2020 SME Law
covid-19
expand image

Workplace law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers launched its landmark test case alleging Mildura Finance and its CEO slashed the salary of a senior manager by more than 80 per cent under the guise of COVID-19 and the JobKeeper program.  

Senior manager Mark Cornell has worked for Mildura Finance since 2003 with an annual remuneration of $202,650. In April, his salary was cut down to just $40,000 despite the business remaining busy and profitable – this new salary was equivalent to just the JobKeeper payments, according to Maurice Blackburn.  

Advertisement
Advertisement

Principal lawyer Josh Bornstein said the courts would decide whether directions that were given to Mr Cornell and other employees at the finance firm were unlawful.  

“In this case, the Federal Court will be asked to adjudicate on the requirements that an employer must meet to qualify for JobKeeper and whether lawful directions were given to employees,” Mr Bornstein said.  

“The manner in which Mr Cornell was treated has caused considerable distress to both him and his wife. He is seeking penalties and compensation for breaches of the Fair Work Act and damages for breach of contract, payment.”  

The Federal Court statement of claim alleged Mr Cornell was told that all employees were required to go on JobKeeper but would be required to work the required hours to meet their workloads and that the company was not required to put anything in writing.  

Maurice Blackburn is alleging that Mildura Finance breached the Fair Work Act 2009 and repudiated his employment contract because the company had not consulted Mr Cornell, acted unreasonably and made it impossible for Mr Cornell to fulfil his obligations to his clients at a particularly busy time for the business.



You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!