In a recent adverse action case, a Queensland gun club has been ordered to pay an 80-year-old manager over $500,000 for systematic underpayments. For more than a decade, the manager was paid just $250 a week while also paying the club $100 in weekly rent for an on-site mobile home where she resided with her disabled son. When the manager questioned her pay, the club issued an ultimatum to sign a substandard contract or face dismissal. The court found the ultimatum amounted to unlawful adverse action, while also penalising the club for systematic minimum wage underpayments.
In this article, we examine this Fair Work general protections case Harper v Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd (No 5) [2026]. Later, we look at the case of a Melbourne finance broker who was fined over $478,000 for underpayments and adverse action involving vulnerable workers.
Case summary: Harper v Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd (No 5) [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Key employee argument: She was systematically underpaid and suffered adverse action when forced to accept a contract ultimatum after questioning her pay.
- Key employer argument: Defended the employment arrangements and denied the contractual and Fair Work general protections violations.
- Court ruling: The employer and nine committee members committed serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009. They were ordered to pay the employee over $500,000, including $33,300 for adverse action.
Read more: Dismissed train driver who snorted ‘8 ball a day’ wins $29K
Manager kept on $250 a week while rent deducted for on-site home
Kate Harper started working for the Gold Coast Pistol Club in 2005 in a part-time administrative role, earning $250 per week. In 2006, she took on the full responsibilities of club manager. However, her base salary remained unchanged at $250 per week for the next 15 years. From that amount, the club deducted $100 per week as rent for an on-site mobile home where she resided with her disabled son.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court determined that between July 2015 and July 2021, Ms Harper should have been paid under Grade 3 of the Amusement, Events and Recreation Award. This entitled her to significantly higher base rates, overtime, penalty rates and accrued leave entitlements that had been entirely denied.
‘This is the last offer we’re making’: Employer took adverse action with ultimatum
In late 2020, Ms Harper exercised her statutory workplace rights by formally questioning her employment conditions. She asked her employer about her base pay rate, overtime, penalty rates and accrued leave entitlements. Ms Harper claimed the club’s president told her that her concerns would be addressed in a new employment contract. The club then presented her with a written contract proposal accompanied by a strict ultimatum.
The club proposed a six-month contract with a yearly salary of $63,360, inclusive of super. It also included a $10,000 payment instead of paying Ms Harper all of her accrued annual leave entitlements. The contract would also see her pay increased weekly rent of $275. Ms Harper alleged that she told the club’s management that the amounts cited in the contract were “not the right pay.” To this, management told her that it was “the last contract we’re giving you.” Ms Harper asked whether she would be dismissed if she did not sign the contract, to which management replied, “Yes, well, this is the last offer we’re making.”
Why did the employee argue she faced adverse action case and underpayments?
In 2021, Ms Harper lodged a Fair Work general protections claim. She argued:
- Gold Coast Pistol Club had systematically underpaid her wages and statutory entitlements for over a decade.
- She suffered adverse action when the club’s committee issued an ultimatum in response to raising concerns about her pay.
- The proposed contract forced an increased weekly rent deduction of $275 for her on-site accommodation, further diminishing her financial position.
- When Ms Harper asked whether refusing the contract meant her employment would end, committee members confirmed it was the final offer. This effectively forced her to give up her lawful entitlements in order to continue her employment.
Why did the court find adverse action and order over $500K in fines?
The Federal Circuit and Family Court delivered its liability decision in April 2025. It ruled that issuing the contract ultimatum constituted adverse action under section 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009, as it sought to penalise Ms Harper for querying her entitlements. The court also found nine individual committee members liable as accessories. These determinations were based on the following findings:
- Ms Harper was particularly vulnerable given she was around 80 years old. She relied on the club for housing and had limited alternative employment opportunities.
- The club missed multiple opportunities to rectify its employment compliance. In December 2016, the club treasurer explicitly raised concerns with the then-president.
- The president resisted regularising Ms Harper’s pay structure to keep her on “at-risk” remuneration arrangements as she aged. This was to ensure her performance did not flag.
- The president’s improper intentions were legally attributable to the club, fully justifying upgraded penalties for serious contraventions.
Read more: Educator blamed for toddler escape wins unfair dismissal payout
Employer ordered to pay $500K in fines for underpayments, adverse action
The Federal Circuit and Family Court delivered its penalty judgment in September 2026, ordering Gold Coast Pistol Club to pay several significant penalties. These included:
- $266,400 for failing to pay minimum award rates.
- Over $166,000 for unpaid leave and statutory entitlements.
- $33,300 for taking adverse action by pressuring Ms Harper to sign the contract proposal.
Individual penalties were also levied against nine of the club’s committee members, collectively totalling over $52,000. In total, the club and its committee members were fined over $500,000.
Two companies and their director hit with $478,880 in penalties
In October 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court penalised two Melbourne finance companies and their common director, Joshua Fuoco. Between them, the companies underpaid four workers, three of them visa holders and one a 20-year-old junior. The companies also took adverse action by dismissing two of the workers who asked about their pay. In two separate judgments delivered on the same day, the court ordered a total of $478,880 in penalties, including $72,620 against Mr Fuoco personally.
Let’s explore these two cases brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Case summary: Fair Work Ombudsman v ANSA Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Fair Work Ombudsman argument: The Fair Work contraventions were deliberate, followed earlier enforcement action and involved vulnerable workers.
- Key respondent argument: None. Neither the company nor its director, Joshua Fuoco, filed material or attended the penalty hearing.
- Court ruling: Penalties of $233,100 against the company and $46,620 against Mr Fuoco.
Workers left unpaid for more than four years
Mr Pandey, Mr Saluja and Mr Isac worked for ANSA Finance between December 2021 and July 2022. Mr Pandey was on a student visa and Mr Saluja held a temporary graduate visa. English was not Mr Saluja’s first language. Mr Isac was 20 years old and employed as a junior.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court found ANSA Finance had underpaid the trio’s minimum rates under the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020. It also failed to pay annual leave, annual leave loading, personal leave, public holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. In addition, ANSA Finance failed to provide pay slips to Mr Isac and Mr Saluja. In total, the workers were owed $23,933.81.
Company took adverse action by dismissing employee
Mr Pandey was dismissed by ANSA Finance after he asked about his unpaid superannuation and requested, then took, paid annual leave on 12 May 2022. The Federal Circuit and Family Court found this amounted to adverse action. Mr Pandey told the court that his dismissal left him in a “really difficult” situation, being without a job during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ANSA Finance never participated in the court proceeding. Default judgment was entered on 27 May 2026, and the court ordered the company to pay $23,933.81 plus interest and superannuation. At 9.43am on the morning of the 24 August 2026 penalty hearing, Mr Fuoco emailed the court to say he would not attend. The court proceeded in the respondents’ absence.
Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman seek penalties?
The Fair Work Ombudsman argued to the court:
- The conduct was deliberate, as ANSA Finance knew the award applied, paid the workers and issued pay slips.
- The respondents had been put on notice before the workers started. They had received four compliance notices in 2021 and court proceedings commenced in October 2021.
- The visa status and age of the workers made them vulnerable to exploitation.
- Mr Fuoco’s history required specific deterrence as he was an officeholder in multiple corporations.
Read more: I will ruin your life: Boss cops $255K bill for sexual harassment
Why did the court impose penalties?
The Federal Circuit and Family Court delivered its decision on 7 October 2026. It ordered penalties of $233,100 against ANSA Finance and $46,620 against Mr Fuoco. This decision was based on the following findings:
- The conduct was “serious, systematic and deliberate” and involved the “exploitation of vulnerable workers.”
- The respondents had previously been penalised $99,900 in February 2024 for failing to comply with Fair Work compliance notices. The amount remained unpaid.
- The adverse action was “particularly egregious” given Mr Pandey’s established underpayment.
- The respondents showed “a lack of any contrition” and the company had not paid the compensation due by 24 June 2026.
- Mr Fuoco held officeholder roles in 27 corporations over 28 years. In July 2025, the Federal Court convicted him of 18 charges of contempt, with a 12-month prison term wholly suspended.
Case summary: Fair Work Ombudsman v AFSL Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Fair Work Ombudsman argument: The company deliberately did not pay a visa worker at all. It also took adverse action by dismissing her for asking when she would be paid.
- Key respondent argument: None. Neither the company nor its director, Joshua Fuoco, filed material or attended the penalty hearing.
- Court ruling: Penalties of $173,160 against the company and $26,000 against Mr Fuoco.
Not paid for four weeks of work
Ms Patel worked for AFSL Group between 16 May and 17 June 2022. She was an Indian national on a temporary bridging visa, later a temporary graduate visa, and English was not her first language. AFSL Group did not pay her at all for any work she performed. The Federal Circuit and Family Court found that she was owed $6,884.10.
On 15 and 16 June 2022, Ms Patel sent two messages and an email to AFSL Group’s director, Joshua Fuoco, asking when she would be paid. The next day, the company replied that her “resignation is accepted.” Ms Patel replied saying that her email was not a resignation, but AFSL told her that she was no longer an employee.
The court found Ms Patel was dismissed because she exercised a workplace right by making enquiries about her unpaid entitlements, amounting to adverse action. As a consequence, she said that she remained unemployed for six months and was placed in “significant financial difficulty.”
Read more: ADHD Worker Unfair Dismissal Claim Fails After Workplace Abuse
Why did the court impose penalties?
The Federal Circuit and Family Court delivered its decision on 7 October 2026. It ordered penalties of $173,160 against AFSL Group and $26,000 against Mr Fuoco. This decision was based on the following findings:
- The contraventions were “deliberate and intentional”. Mr Fuoco knew the award applied, oversaw the business and knew Ms Patel had not been paid.
- Ms Patel was a vulnerable visa worker with limited knowledge of her workplace rights. Her dismissal for asking about her pay was an aggravating factor.
- The respondents had been put on notice by four compliance notices and court proceedings before Ms Patel started. Mr Fuoco had also not yet paid previous penalties.
- There was no evidence of corrective action or apology, and previous court orders had not been complied with. The respondents showed “a complete disregard and contempt” for the Fair Work Ombudsman’s role.
Fair Work FAQs
-
Can an employer dismiss me for asking about unpaid wages?
No. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, asking about your pay, overtime, penalty rates or leave entitlements is exercising a workplace right. An employer cannot dismiss you or take other adverse action against you because you did so.
In Harper v Gold Coast Pistol Club Ltd (No 5) [2026], the court found the club took adverse action when, after the manager queried her pay, it presented a substandard contract and told her it was the last offer. She was told she would be dismissed if she did not sign.
-
Do visa holders have the same pay entitlements as other employees?
Yes, the Fair Work Act 2009 and applicable awards apply to all employees working in Australia, whatever their visa status. Employers who underpay visa holders can face penalties, and courts treat the worker’s vulnerability as relevant.
In Fair Work Ombudsman v ANSA Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026], two workers on student and graduate visas were underpaid under their award, and the court treated their vulnerability as relevant to the penalty. In Fair Work Ombudsman v AFSL Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026], a worker on a bridging visa, later a graduate visa, was not paid at all for four weeks of work, and was dismissed after asking when she would be paid. The court accepted her vulnerability as an aggravating factor.
Targeted by adverse action? We can help hold your employer accountable
If you have suffered negative consequences at work for asking about your rights or questioning your pay, you may have grounds for a Fair Work general protections claim. At A Whole New Approach, we’ve spent over 20 years helping Australian employees stand up against unfair treatment.
Your initial consultation with us is free, private and confidential, and we operate on a no-win, no-fee basis. Get in touch with us seven days per week on 1300 766 700.
