WHS Manager vs Dodgy Employer: False Payslips, Unpaid Super and a Costly Lesson for Directors

When a WHS manager ends up in Federal Court explaining how his employer split his salary, falsified records and underpaid entitlements, every director and HR manager should be paying attention.

See our Instagram breakdown of this case here:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DU_2wJvk4P-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

A $200k role, fake structure and missing super

In Shirmohammadi v MMP Industrial Pty Ltd, the Court found that MMP Industrial and its sole director ran a dodgy salary and record‑keeping setup for their operations/WHS manager.

• He was on a $200,000 package but paid via a split arrangement:
  • Weekly pay from MMP Industrial at only about 54% of his proper weekly salary.
  • Extra monthly payments from another company, with no payslips for those amounts.
• The total still underpaid him each month – there was a consistent shortfall.
• Superannuation was only paid on the “on the books” portion; the other half of his pay had no super going in at all until after he complained and after his job ended.

The Court declared that:

• MMP Industrial contravened s 323(1) of the Fair Work Act by underpaying him over six months – a single “course of conduct” contravention, but still serious.
• It breached s 90(2) by not paying out accrued annual leave on termination (a breach of the NES and therefore s 44).
• It failed to provide payslips for multiple payments and then later issued false or misleading pay advices pretending to fix the problem, contravening ss 536(1) and 536(3).

The director was found personally involved in these breaches and therefore taken to have contravened the same provisions under s 550.

False payslips and back‑filling the record

MMP tried to “clean up” after the fact by issuing pay advices months later for the off‑book payments.

• Those documents listed MMP as the employer, even though another company had actually made the payments.
• They included incorrect superannuation details (for example, “SGC Fund Details Pending”), and did not accurately reflect what had really been paid and when.

The Court treated these as false or misleading payslips, not a legitimate correction. That is a direct, standalone breach of s 536(3).

On top of that, when the employment ended, MMP:

• Did not pay out the accrued annual leave at the time of termination.
• Only paid the leave, the remaining super and some underpayments after lawyers became involved and months had passed.

This is exactly the kind of pattern that will attract regulator interest and maximum penalties.

WHS complaints didn’t save the day

The manager argued he was terminated because he raised WHS concerns – including chemicals, forklifts and phone use – and tried to link that to general protections (adverse action).

The sting in the tail:

• The Court accepted he had genuinely raised WHS issues, but found those were not the real reason for his dismissal.
• The CEO’s evidence about performance issues, missed meetings and communication problems was accepted as the true reasons.
• The adverse action and “three‑month notice” claims were dismissed, even though the employer’s payslip, wages and super practices were clearly unlawful.

So MMP Industrial escapes the WHS‑complaint angle, but is now squarely exposed on:

• Underpayments.
• Unpaid super.
• False payslips and poor records.

Penalties will be set at a later hearing – and they are likely to hurt.

What this should scream to PCBUs and directors

If you are running anything that looks like MMP’s setup, this judgment is a massive red flag:

• Split pays through different entities to “hide” what someone really earns?
• No payslips or late, back‑dated payslips for part of their pay?
• Super only paid on part of the real salary?
• Trying to “fix” it with creative paperwork months later?

That combination is a gift to both the Fair Work Ombudsman and plaintiff lawyers. It also destroys your credibility if you ever end up in a WHS or employment case.

For WHS managers, it is a warning that:

• You can be absolutely right about safety and still lose an adverse action claim if your employer can show genuine performance reasons backed by emails, meeting notes and production data.

For PCBUs and directors, the message is simple:

• Pay people correctly.
• Pay super on what they actually earn.
• Issue accurate payslips every time.
• Do not get creative with entities and back‑filled documentation.

Because when a WHS manager walks into court with a story like this, the regulator and the judge are not going to like what they see.