The price of non-compliance

The Risk of Cutting Corners in Compliance

In the complex landscape of payroll management, opting to ignore compliance might seem like a shortcut to reduce operational costs. Yet, this decision can lead to hefty penalties, tarnish your organisation’s reputation, and diminish employee trust, negating any immediate financial savings. Advancements in wage compliance technology have undoubtedly increased efficiency, compliance, and accuracy.

The Real Costs of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance with payroll extends beyond financial penalties to legal consequences and a negative impact on staff morale. The Fair Work Ombudsman in Australia is known for its stringent stance on non-compliance, issuing fines that can far exceed the original underpayments. This situation clearly shows that cutting costs in compliance is risky and can end up being more expensive in the long run.

The Cost of Audits and Internal Costs

Non-compliance often triggers regulatory audits, which can be a costly affair for organisations. The initiation of an audit due to underpayment issues not only requires a significant investment of time but also incurs substantial financial costs. These audits can unveil systemic issues that necessitate a deep dive into past payroll practices, often stretching back years. The internal costs associated with managing such audits are not trivial; they include dedicating internal resources to gather historical payroll data, which disrupts regular operations and requires additional labor, sometimes necessitating the hiring of external consultants to ensure thoroughness.

Whistleblower Costs

Whistleblowers play a critical role in bringing issues of non-compliance to light. However, for the organisation involved, whistleblower actions can lead to significant costs. Beyond the immediate financial implications of addressing the underlying non-compliance, organisations must also manage potential legal fees and settlements. There’s also the cost of implementing systems to protect whistleblowers, which is essential for maintaining an ethical workplace but requires investment in confidential reporting mechanisms and protective measures.

Investigation and Remediation Process

Once an issue is identified, either through audits or whistleblower actions, a thorough investigation is essential. This process involves scrutinising payroll records, identifying the extent of underpayments, and understanding the root causes. The remediation process typically starts internally, with HR and payroll teams working to rectify issues. However, it often culminates in engaging an external auditor to ensure all underpayments are identified and rectified, referencing statutory obligations within a six-year period to ensure comprehensive compliance.

Reputational Costs

The reputational damage from non-compliance can far outweigh immediate financial costs. When publicised, cases of payroll non-compliance can erode public trust and employee confidence, affecting the organisation’s ability to attract and retain talent. The long-term impact on an organisation’s brand can also influence customer loyalty and stakeholder trust, potentially leading to decreased market share and profitability.

Opportunity Costs

Focusing on remediation and dealing with the fallout from non-compliance diverts resources and attention from strategic initiatives. The opportunity cost includes not only the direct financial resources allocated for rectification but also the strategic projects delayed or sidelined. Investments in innovation, expansion, and employee development may be put on hold, hindering organisational growth and competitiveness in the market.

Lessons from Recent History

There’s no shortage of examples among Australian employers who’ve faced significant payroll underpayment and compliance issues due to inadequate systems and processes. This highlights the consequences of improper system implementation—massive overpayments and underpayments that affect employees and damage the organisation’s reputation.

The Role of Directors and Technology

At a minimum, directors need to be proactive; they cannot check their own work, and ignorance is no longer a strong defence. Technology like WageSafe enables every employee’s payroll to be monitored and corrected in real-time, preventing unpleasant surprises. For directors, employing such technology significantly mitigates personal risk by ensuring compliance is consistently maintained. This approach not only enhances organisational compliance but also reinforces a culture of transparency and accountability in payroll management.

Mar 27, 2024

Share this entry


  • In a recent development, Baker’s Delight, a well-known bakery franchise, is facing legal action initiated by the workplace watchdog for its alleged failure to prevent a franchisee from underpaying workers. The Fair Work Ombudsman has filed a case in the Federal Court, accusing Baker’s Delight of being aware of the franchisee’s underpayments but failing to […]

  • The Financial Review highlights the key issue of underpayments in a large retailer. Chemist Warehouse is facing a $10 million backpay bill after the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) took legal action against four of its South Australian franchisees for allegedly underpaying nine staff while working higher duties. The union identifies that the […]