Adelaide restaurant owners hit with $800K+ penalties for exploiting migrant workers
A husband-and-wife team operating two Vietnamese eateries in Adelaide have been ordered to pay $802,000 in court penalties and compensation after being found guilty of "disgraceful" exploitation of migrant workers, predominantly international students. The Federal Court's ruling highlighted a pattern of underpayment and punitive measures, including forcing staff to purchase bubble tea for their employers.
Viet Quoc Mai, the operator of "Mr Viet" in Rundle Mall and a food court outlet in Chinatown, was ordered to back-pay $407,546, plus interest and superannuation, to 36 underpaid workers. His wife, Huong Le, the manager of the eateries, was also penalised. The court imposed a $265,000 penalty against Mr. Mai and a $130,000 penalty against Ms. Le for their involvement in the contraventions.
Workers, employed as kitchen attendants, bar and waitstaff, and in customer service roles, were paid as little as $15 per hour. Deductions were made from their wages for alleged customer mischarges and improperly closed refrigerator doors.
A "strike board system" was implemented, where employees accumulating six strikes were forced to buy food and beverages, including bubble tea, for the owners and other staff.
The court found numerous breaches of workplace laws, including underpayment of minimum rates, weekend and public holiday loadings, and overtime rates. False records were provided to Fair Work inspectors, and employees were denied compensation for missed meal breaks. Individual workers were underpaid amounts ranging from $75 to $58,592.
Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth condemned the actions, stating, "These substantial penalties highlight that exploiting vulnerable migrant workers is particularly reprehensible conduct that will not be tolerated in Australia." She added, "If you exploit your workers, you will be found out and called out. The respondents have been left with court orders to pay more than $800,000 because of their unlawful conduct."
The Ombudsman also highlighted Mr. Mai's attempt to deceive the regulator. "Among the long list of unacceptable conduct, we take a dim view of trying to trick the regulator into believing there is a good-faith attempt to rectify noncompliance, only to force an employee who thought he was getting $10,000 to give it all back."
Justice Stephen McDonald noted Mr. Mai's "calculated and dishonest course of conduct," including providing false records and instructing employees to lie to inspectors. He emphasised the need for specific deterrence due to Mr. Mai's dishonesty. "Mr. Mai’s repeated dishonest attempts to conceal contraventions and to mislead the FWO investigation leave me with a concern that he is a person who is prepared to act dishonestly when he thinks it will be to his benefit," Justice McDonald said.
The court recognised the vulnerability of the underpaid workers, many of whom were visa-holders from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Justice McDonald described the conduct as an "exploitation of the employer/employee relationship, with the power dynamic favouring the employer." He stressed the need to deter similar conduct, particularly in the fast-food and restaurant sector, where employees "may tend to be vulnerable to exploitation and who may be unwilling or unable to complain."
Jonathan Jackson, 6th May 2025
