Adelaide employer to pay $25k penalty for not providing adequate meal breaks

An automotive industry group made threats "to create fear" in a man who had brought legal action against his employer for not giving him adequate lunch breaks, a tribunal judgment has found.

The judgement, published by the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) last month, ordered that self-serve auto wrecker and recycler U Pull It pay a penalty of $25,000 to a motor mechanic who worked nine-hour weekend shifts without adequate breaks.

"The applicant's uncontroverted evidence is of following instructions to not leave the site during meal periods, of not being given rostered meal break times, of not sitting in a separate lunchroom for meal breaks, and of mostly eating food at a seated workstation," deputy SAET president Stephen Lieschke wrote.

"The applicant described a personal need to rest from his predominantly standing duties on nine-hour shifts. Their absence resulted in unnecessary discomfort and increased joint pain.

"The absence of meal breaks also prevented the applicant from seeing his family, except to sometimes hand over food, on long weekend days of work."

An earlier judgment, published on March 3, 2026, found that U Pull It had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 by not allowing the man to have "proper meal breaks".

Threats made

The judgment also explored allegations the motor mechanic was threatened by U Pull It, and the Motor Trade Association (MTA), to cease legal action.

"The applicant was asked [by the MTA who was acting on behalf of U Pull It] to 'discontinue the claim as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary costs being incurred by the respondent [U Pull It]'," it read.

"By email to the applicant on 8 July 2025 the MTA repeated its costs threat, stating it: 'will be seeking a costs order against' the applicant and, again, asking him to withdraw his claim to 'avoid any further costs'."

Mr Lieschke wrote that the "costs threats" were "made without a valid basis".

"I find the purpose of the references to costs applications was to create fear of the applicant having to pay some or all of the respondent's legal costs for two hearings with a barrister and solicitor," he wrote.

"The aim of the first threat was for the claim to be withdrawn.

"The aim of the subsequent threats was for the applicant to be pressured into accepting a financial offer with unspecified confidentiality conditions and no change of practices."

He added that the worker "took the costs threats seriously".

"They had a stressful and intimidatory impact on him," Mr Lieschke said.

The judgment explained that the general manager of U Pull It, Christopher Goode, had provided an affidavit that "included an expression of apology for the way the applicant felt about the legal costs threats, but not for making the threats to have the claims dropped".

"I find the respondent's statement of apology to the applicant, through Mr Goode, rings hollow," Mr Lieschke wrote.

"I find the apology is not consistent with the foreseeable intimidatory impact of the repeated costs threats, which are still defended by the respondent."

In a statement, the MTA said they would not "comment further on the specific findings contained in this judgement" other than to say that they acted as an industrial representative for the business.

"The MTA regularly assists member businesses with workplace relations matters and seeks to provide guidance on the information available at the time," it said.

"The MTA respects the role of the South Australian Employment Tribunal in determining such matters and does not propose to comment further on the specific findings contained in the judgement."

New meal break policy

Mr Lieschke noted that Mr Goode had provided evidence that the meal break policy has changed since "the finding of contraventions".

He said that supervisors and weekend staff had been informed that they were allowed to leave the site for a 30-minute lunch break.

"I accept the new policy cures the systemic breaches that gave rise to the contraventions," Mr Lieschke added.

"I find the respondent is unlikely to commit further related contraventions if the policy is monitored and maintained in practice, and if similar costs tactics are not deployed in the event of future complaints."

The judgment noted that Mr Goode's affidavit also informed the tribunal that five current long-serving staff members, who had also been affected, had received a lump sum payment as a result of the contraventions being identified.

Mr Lieschke found that "past non-compliance has resulted in substantial financial gain" for U Pull It, and determined that a "penalty of $25,000 is most appropriate".

He also ordered that the amount be paid to the worker.