Bakery Feeling the Heat from the Fair Work Ombudsman for the Fourth Time in Five Years

| October 16, 2026

The Fair Work Ombudsman has commenced further proceedings against a Perth bakery, highlighting the risks of repeated workplace law non-compliance, inadequate employment records and obstructing Fair Work Inspectors.

For employers, the case is a reminder that workplace compliance extends beyond paying employees correctly. Businesses must also maintain accurate records, respond appropriately to regulatory investigations and understand their obligations when Fair Work Inspectors attend their premises.

Background

Sinamon Pty Ltd (Sinamon), a bakery operating across several locations in Perth, Western Australia, appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) on 4 September 2026 for a directions hearing in proceedings commenced by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO).

The proceedings involve Sinamon, its director Yan Woon Desiree Hui (Ms Hui), and former director Ahmed El Sayed Imam (Dr Imam).¹

This represents the fourth set of proceedings involving Sinamon and its directors since the company was registered on 31 March 2021.

In three previous proceedings before the Western Australian Industrial Magistrates Court, penalties totalling more than $135,000 were imposed:²

• 2021: $14,300 for obstructing industrial inspectors.
• 2023: More than $89,000 for deliberately failing to comply with a court order to provide employment records.
• October 2025: $31,000 for underpaying a junior employee and failing to maintain required employment records.³

The latest proceedings raise further concerns about compliance with workplace laws, particularly obligations relating to Fair Work Inspectors, employee records and migrant workers.

What the FWO Alleges

The latest proceedings involve several alleged contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

1. Obstructing Fair Work Inspectors

The FWO alleges that Sinamon and Ms Hui contravened section 707A of the FW Act when Ms Hui physically obstructed one of two Fair Work Inspectors attempting to access an office during an unannounced workplace visit in October 2022.

The inspection followed a complaint from a Japanese visa holder who had worked casually at the bakery between January and June 2022.⁴

2. Misrepresenting Workplace Rights

The FWO alleges that Sinamon and Dr Imam contravened section 345 of the FW Act when Dr Imam told a visa holder, who had worked for the business for less than a week, that money could be deducted from his wages for alleged damage caused by his departure.⁵

3. Failure to Comply With a Compliance Notice

The FWO alleges that Sinamon, Ms Hui and Dr Imam failed to comply with a Compliance Notice issued in August 2024 concerning suspected underpayments of two visa holders, contrary to section 716(5) of the FW Act.⁶

4. Failure to Produce Employment Records

The FWO alleges that the respondents failed to comply with a Notice to Produce documents issued by a Fair Work Inspector, contrary to section 712(3) of the FW Act.⁷

5. Record-Keeping and Payslip Contraventions

The proceedings also allege multiple breaches of employment record-keeping and payslip obligations under sections 535 and 536 of the FW Act and the Fair Work Regulations 2009.⁸

These allegations remain subject to determination by the Court.

Serious Consequences for Non-Compliance

Fair Work Ombudsman Anna Booth has emphasised that obstructing Fair Work Inspectors in the performance of their duties is unacceptable.

The FWO has also identified the protection of migrant workers and improved compliance in the fast food, restaurant and café sector as enforcement priorities.

In the latest proceedings, the FWO is seeking penalties of up to:

• $93,900 per contravention against Sinamon.
• $18,780 per contravention against Ms Hui and Dr Imam individually.⁹

These are penalties sought by the regulator, not penalties already imposed by the Court.

High-Risk Industries Under Scrutiny

Hospitality, restaurants, fast food and retail businesses frequently employ young workers, casual employees and visa holders.

These sectors have been the subject of significant enforcement action involving underpayments, inaccurate employment records and failures to comply with workplace obligations.

Recent examples include:

Sushi Bay

In 2024, the Federal Court ordered Sushi Bay businesses to pay penalties totalling $15.3 million following deliberate underpayments of hundreds of employees, many of whom held student or skilled worker visas. The underpayments exceeded $650,000.¹⁰

85 Degrees

Also in 2024, the Federal Court imposed penalties of $1.44 million against franchisor 85 Degrees for systemic failures to ensure compliance across its franchise network, resulting in significant underpayments of young workers and visa holders.¹¹

Coles and Woolworths

The FWO has also pursued major proceedings involving alleged employee underpayments and inadequate record-keeping practices at large Australian retailers.¹²

These matters demonstrate that workplace compliance risks are not confined to small businesses. Employers of all sizes must ensure that payroll, employment records and workplace practices meet their legal obligations.

Fair Work Inspectors: Their Powers and Employers’ Obligations

Fair Work Inspectors have broad investigative powers under the FW Act.

Where the relevant statutory conditions are satisfied, inspectors may investigate suspected contraventions of the National Employment Standards, modern awards, enterprise agreements and other workplace instruments.¹³

Their powers can include:

• Entering workplace premises where the statutory grounds for entry are met, including where relevant employment records are believed to be located.
• Inspecting work, processes and objects on the premises.
• Interviewing individuals and requesting identifying information in prescribed circumstances.
• Requiring information about the person responsible for maintaining or accessing employment records.
• Requiring the production of relevant documents and records, including by written notice.
• Inspecting and copying employment records, including electronically stored documents.
• Taking samples of goods or substances where permitted by the regulations.¹⁴ ¹⁵

The FW Act also permits appropriately authorised persons to assist Fair Work Inspectors where their assistance is reasonably necessary and they meet the relevant requirements.¹⁶

Employers should ensure that managers and supervisors understand how to respond lawfully and appropriately when an inspector attends the workplace.

Hindering or Obstructing a Fair Work Inspector

Under the FW Act, a person must not hinder or obstruct a Fair Work Inspector, authorised assistant or relevant FWO officer in the performance of their compliance duties, unless a statutory exception applies.¹⁷

Contraventions can result in significant civil penalties for businesses and individuals involved in the conduct.¹⁸

The legislation recognises circumstances where a person has a reasonable excuse or where an inspector has failed to produce an identity card when required.¹⁹

Although the FW Act does not define reasonable excuse, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the expression takes its ordinary meaning.

For example, a temporary delay may be justified where an employer needs to undertake necessary work health and safety checks before permitting access to a particular area.²⁰

However, an employer relying on a reasonable excuse must be able to substantiate the circumstances supporting that position.²¹

The Federal Court has previously found that closing a business premises to prevent Fair Work Inspectors from entering does not constitute a reasonable excuse and may amount to obstruction.²²

Responding to Requests for Employment Records

Employers must comply with lawful requests and notices issued by Fair Work Inspectors within the applicable requirements and timeframes.

Where an inspector requests employment records or other relevant documents, employers should:

• Verify the inspector’s identity and the nature of the request.
• Identify the documents and information required.
• Preserve relevant employment records and electronic data.
• Ensure responses are accurate, complete and provided within applicable deadlines.
• Seek legal advice promptly if there is uncertainty about the scope of the request or the business’s obligations.

Failure to comply with a lawful request or statutory notice may expose the business and individuals involved to further enforcement action.

What This Means for Employers

1. Review Payroll and Award Compliance

Employers should regularly review employee classifications, minimum rates of pay, overtime, penalty rates, allowances and other award or enterprise agreement entitlements.

This is particularly important where the business employs casual workers, junior employees or visa holders.

2. Maintain Accurate Employment Records

Employers must maintain accurate and accessible employment records, including records relating to wages, hours of work, leave and other prescribed employment matters.

Records generally must be retained for seven years and be capable of production when lawfully requested.

3. Train Managers to Respond to Inspectors

Managers and supervisors should understand the powers of Fair Work Inspectors and the business’s obligations during workplace inspections.

A documented inspection response procedure can reduce the risk of inappropriate conduct, missed deadlines or incomplete responses.

4. Understand Individual Liability

Directors, managers and other individuals involved in workplace law contraventions may face personal liability in certain circumstances.

Compliance responsibilities should be clearly allocated and supported by appropriate oversight.

5. Address Compliance Issues Early

Where underpayments, record-keeping deficiencies or other workplace compliance concerns are identified, employers should act promptly to investigate, rectify and prevent further contraventions.

Key Takeaways

• The FWO continues to prioritise enforcement in industries employing vulnerable workers, including young employees and visa holders.
• Employers must comply with lawful requests from Fair Work Inspectors and must not hinder or obstruct investigations.
• Accurate employment records and compliant payslips are essential workplace obligations.
• Directors and managers may face personal liability for involvement in workplace law contraventions.
• Serious underpayment conduct may also attract criminal consequences under the workplace laws introduced from January 2025.²³

Why Workplace Compliance Matters

The FWO continues to prioritise underpayments and record-keeping compliance in high-risk industries employing vulnerable workers, including agriculture (see our [previous article](INSERT ARTICLE LINK)), hospitality, fast food and retail.

Since January 2025, intentional underpayment of wages and entitlements may also attract criminal penalties where the statutory requirements are met.²³ Minimum workplace entitlements apply regardless of an employee’s visa status.

Employers must comply with lawful requests from Fair Work Inspectors and must not hinder or obstruct investigations.

Strengthening Your Compliance Framework

Accurate payroll systems and compliant employment records are essential for businesses of all sizes.

Employers must comply with the record-keeping and payslip requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and Fair Work Regulations 2009, including the general requirement to retain prescribed employment records for seven years.²⁴ ²⁵

Regular compliance reviews can help identify potential underpayments, inaccurate records and other workplace risks before they result in enforcement action.

Need Support With Workplace Compliance?

IRiQ Law can assist employers with tailored workplace compliance reviews, payroll audits, award classification assessments and advice on responding to Fair Work Ombudsman investigations.

As a starting point, our Records and Payslips Checklist can help your business assess its current record-keeping and payslip practices.

Don’t give the FWO a reason to knock on your door. But if an inspector does attend, make sure your business knows its obligations.

Contact our team for advice on workplace compliance and protecting your business from avoidable legal risks.

Footnotes

¹ Perth bakery director allegedly physically blocked Inspector trying to access records’ (Media Release, Fair Work Ombudsman, 18 August 2026); Uyen Duong, ‘Bakery chain director fined for obstructing Fair Work inspectors’, InsideRetail (online, 18 August 2026) Bakery chain director fined for obstructing Fair Work inspectors – Inside Retail Australia. 

² Unlike most other Australian States, Western Australia has a state industrial relations system established under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) which operates alongside the Fair Work Commission.   

³  Chloe Maher and Tegwen Bescoby, ‘Sinamon café owner breaks silence after being fined $31k for underpaying ex-worker, failing to pay super’, PerthNow (online, 15 October 2025) Sinamon cafe owner breaks silence after being fined $31k for underpaying ex-worker, failing to pay super | PerthNow; ‘Sinamon café owners fined more than $89,000 for not producing employment records’ (Media Release, Government of Western Australia, last updated 14 August 2024). 

⁴ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 707A(1). 

⁵ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 345(1). 

⁶ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 716(5). 

⁷ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 712(3). 

⁸ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 535, 536; Fair Work Regulations 2009 Part 3-6 Division 3. 

⁹ ‘Perth bakery director allegedly physically blocked Inspector trying to access records’ (Media Release, Fair Work Ombudsman, 18 August 2026) 

¹⁰ ‘Record penalties of $15.3 million for exploitation of migrant workers at sushi outlets’ (Media Release, Fair Work Ombudsman, 6 August 2024). 

¹¹ ’85 Degrees franchisor penalised $1.44 million’, (Media Release, Fair Work Ombudsman, 5 June 2024). 

¹² ‘Offsetting and record-keeping for salaried employees’, Fair Work Ombudsman (Web Page, published 26 September 2025) Offsetting and record-keeping for salaried employees – Fair Work Ombudsman; Fair Work Ombudsman v Woolworths and Coles [2025] FCA 1092. 

¹⁴ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 708. 

¹⁵ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 709. 

¹⁶ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 710. 

¹⁷ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 707A. 

¹⁸ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 549; Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2024] FCA 785 [687] – [707]; Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No ⁴) [2024] FCA 1475 . 

¹⁹ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 707A. 

²⁰ Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2024] FCA 785 [699]. 

²¹ Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2024] FCA 785 [700]. 

²² Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2024] FCA 785 [714-717]. 

²⁴ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 53; Fair Work Regulations 2009 Chapter 3, Part 3-6 Division 3. 

²⁵ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 535.