$25k Fine for Denying Lunch Breaks Hits Adelaide Auto Dismantler

"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," he wrote. The mechanic took the threats seriously. The general manager of U Pull It, Christopher Goode, issued an apology – but only for how the threats made the worker feel, not for making them. Lieschke called the apology hollow.

The real cost for U Pull It goes beyond the $25,000 penalty. The company admitted that five current long-serving staff had also been affected by the same policy. Each received a lump-sum payment under a revised practice. Goode told the tribunal the meal-break policy had changed: supervisors and weekend staff now know they can leave the site for 30 minutes. Lieschke accepted the new policy cures the systemic breaches.

Yet the financial gain from past non-compliance was substantial. Lieschke wrote that U Pull It had saved money on labour and that a $25,000 penalty was appropriate given the gain. The MTA, in a statement, declined to comment further on the specific findings but said it respects the tribunal's role.

For other auto recyclers and industrial employers in South Australia, the case serves as a clear marker. The tribunal is willing to scrutinise break policies and penalise not just the employer but any party that threatens legal action to suppress claims. The cost of compliance – scheduling proper breaks, providing a separate rest area – is trivial compared with a $25,000 penalty plus back pay and legal fees. Firms that treat meal breaks as optional on long shifts face the same risk.