A Sydney bakery and its owner have been ordered to pay over $300,000 for Fair Work Act 2009 contraventions involving the exploitation of a young intellectually disabled worker. The teenager had been coerced into spending over $18,000 of her own money for the bakery’s expenses and the owner’s overseas trips. The court described the worker’s treatment as so “egregious” that to merely label it “deplorable is, frankly, an understatement.”
In this article, we look at the shocking events of this Fair Work contravention case Johnson v Village Bakery Balgowlah Heights Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025]. Later, we look at a Fair Work general protections case involving a Network Seven producer who claimed he faced disability discrimination. However, the network has claimed that the producer’s “misogynistic”’ and “aggressive” behaviour left female staff “in tears.”
Tayla Maddison Johnson began working for Village Bakery Balgowlah Heights as a casual retail assistant on 16 June 2021. She was 16 years old when she joined and lived with a mild intellectual disability and ADHD. In the first three weeks of her employment, Ms. Johnson worked around 123 hours and was paid a total of $1,233 dollars. This equated to roughly $10 per hour, which was significantly lower than the minimum hourly rate mandated by the relevant modern award.
After receiving this payment, Ms. Johnson received no wages at all for the remainder of her employment at Village Bakery, which lasted until 24 April 2023. The exploitation extended beyond the non-payment of wages into a profound breach of trust involving Ms. Johnson’s living arrangements. On three separate occasions, totalling nine months, Ms. Johnson resided in a flat situated above the bakery. The bakery owner, Nhu Anh Vu, also lived in the flat.
During this time, Ms. Vu took advantage of the vulnerability and dependence of Ms. Johnson by requiring her to pay for the bakery’s expenses. Ms. Johnson was directed to pay for meat and other bakery supplies, as well as rent for the commercial premises. She was even required to contribute financially toward the overseas holiday expenses of Ms. Vu and her family. These demands were often conveyed via text message and were described by the court as “manipulative” requirements rather than mere requests.
In total, Ms. Johnson spent $18,080 of her own money to pay for the bakery’s expenses and those of Ms. Vu. She was forced to use funds from her disability support pension. When the employment relationship eventually ceased, Ms. Vu refused to allow Ms. Johnson to retrieve her personal belongings from the flat.
Ms. Johnson’s legal team argued that the conduct of Village Bakery and Ms. Vu constituted a “systematic pattern of conduct” that met the definition of a serious contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. Her team submitted that the respondents knowingly used the youth and intellectual disability of Ms. Johnson to facilitate commercial gain.
Village Bakery was required by law to keep records of Ms. Johnson’s employment and provide her payslips. It was highlighted that the respondents had failed to provide a response to requests for these records. This led to the conclusion that they were never made or kept by Village Bakery. Because it was required by law to do this, the burden of proof shifted to the business to disprove the underpayment allegations.
Ms. Vu and the bakery elected not to participate in the court proceedings. The court noted that Ms. Vu had “actively evaded” the court’s attempt to serve her a notice of proceedings against her. It also highlighted that she had “misrepresented her whereabouts” to court servers. Ms. Johnson’s legal team said that these were not isolated incidents of inadvertence but a “deliberate disregard for statutory obligations” over a period of 20.5 months.
Ms. Johnson’s team sought a declaration of serious contravention from the court. This carried a maximum penalty five times higher than a standard breach, of between $3 million to $4 million.
Ms. Johnson’s Fair Work contraventions case was first heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in July 2025. The final penalty judgement was delivered in December 2025. It had to consider whether the conduct met the statutory definition of a serious contravention under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, if Ms. Vu knowingly contravened the legislation and the conduct was part of a systematic pattern of conduct. The court pointed to the “undisputed” evidence that Village Bakery had a “complete disregard” of its legal obligations to Ms. Johnson.
It accepted that Ms. Vu was the “controlling mind” of the company. The court deemed that she had full knowledge of the facts and intentionally orchestrated the acts and omissions that led to the exploitation. The court found that Ms. Vu’s demands for Ms. Johnson to pay business expenses and personal costs were made “expressly and repeatedly.” It said that the “ongoing” and “deliberate” nature of these contraventions demonstrated a pattern of consistent disregard for the Fair Work obligations.
The court noted that the conduct involved the respondents “knowingly” taking advantage of the fact that Ms. Johnson was a teenager and intellectually disabled. It described the situation as a “profound breach of trust” that led to Ms. Johnson losing over $18,000 of her own money.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court ultimately ruled that Village Bakery committed serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009. This included modern award breaches, failure to pay wages and unreasonable financial requirements. It also included record-keeping violations and a failure to provide payslips. The court said that the amount of the underpayment would be “indefensible” if it happened to an adult employee. It noted that in Ms. Johnson’s case, the underpayment was “particularly egregious” as she was young and of limited capacity.
The court said that to label Village Bakery and Ms. Vu’s conduct as “deplorable is, frankly, an understatement.” It emphasised that the penalty imposed on the business must have “sufficient sting” to ensure Ms. Vu is deterred from workplace exploitation in the future. The court ordered Village Bakery to pay an aggregate penalty of $160,000, while Ms. Vu was ordered to pay $75,000 personally. These penalties were ordered to be paid directly to Ms. Johnson. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to pay $72,192.65 in compensation for unpaid wages, superannuation and the unreasonable spending requirements.
Ms. Johnson was also awarded $18,171.40 in damages for having her belongings kept from her. Finally, due to the “unreasonable act” of evading service, the court ordered the respondents to pay $2,500 in legal costs to Ms. Johnson.
In August 2025, prominent Network Seven producer Matthew McGrane initiated a Fair Work general protections claim alleging disability discrimination. The claim is currently being decided by the Federal Court of Australia in the case McGrane v Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd [2025]. Mr. McGrane has worked as a producer with the network for nearly 25 years. He is paraplegic due to transverse myelitis and has used a wheelchair for more than two decades. In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr. McGrane alleged that Seven Network engaged in unlawful adverse action and disability discrimination.
Mr. McGrane’s Fair Work general protections claim came after an accident and the subsequent breakdown in his relationship with the network’s management. At the time, Mr. McGrane was the supervising producer for the breakfast program Sunrise. He worked a roster that typically ran from 2 pm to midnight from Monday to Thursday, and 9am to 7pm on Sundays. In the lead up to the accident, Mr. McGrane reached a verbal agreement with Seven Network’s executive producer to leave the office at 9:20 pm so he could catch a bus with wheelchair access. These buses ceased operations at 11pm.
Fair Work general protections claim: Left with multiple injuries after wheelchair accident
The accident that led to Mr. McGrane’s Fair Work general protections claim happened on 17 October 2023. While navigating an uneven footpath in the dark and rain on his way to the bus stop, Mr. McGrane fell from his wheelchair. He told the ABC’s Four Corners that “My wheels got caught. I came flying out,” before he landed “extremely awkwardly.” He further recounted that his face was dragged along the pavement. Mr. McGrane said “I could feel my teeth scraping along the footpath because they’d actually gone through my lip.”
The accident left Mr. McGrane with a fractured forearm and the detachment of the triceps muscle. He said he was in “excruciating pain” and “howling like a dog,” eventually requiring surgery. Mr. McGrane explained that doctors “had to drill a hole into my arm” to reattach muscles. He spent 10 weeks recovering from the accident, unable to care for himself.
In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr. McGrane said that during his recovery his workers’ compensation claim was rejected. The insurer cited information from the Seven Network claiming that “no formal agreement” existed for Mr. McGrane to work a split shift. It also said that no Sunrise employee was rostered for such an arrangement. Mr. McGrane stated this left him feeling “abandoned, hurt [and] completely in disbelief.”
Upon his return to work on 15 April 2024, he alleged that Seven Networks’ director of morning television sidelined him by stripping his supervisory duties. She also removed him from Microsoft Teams and instructed him to communicate only via email. He further alleged he was passed over for the executive producer role in favour of junior staff. Mr. McGrane argued to the Fair Work Commission that this constituted workplace bullying and discrimination.
In response to Mr. McGrane’s Fair Work general protections claim, the Seven Network claimed that changes to his employment were caused by disability discrimination his compensation claim. Rather, the network argued that they were due to his serious conduct issues. The Seven Network alleged that during Mr. McGrane’s absence, a “soul-crushing” workplace culture was uncovered through complaints from staff under his supervision.
According to court documents, junior colleagues alleged that Mr. McGrane “frequently exhibited aggressive behaviour.” This included swearing, shouting and harshly dismissing the ideas of other employees. The network further claimed that several younger female producers reported feeling “unsafe” and were “often left in tears” due to his management style.
Specific allegations of misogyny formed a central part of the Seven Networks’ defence against the Fair Work general protections claim. It alleged that female employees provided feedback that Mr. McGrane had made derogatory comments while watching television presenters. Specifically, that he had allegedly used words to the effect of “you look fat, that’s disgusting” and “wear a more low-cut top.” The broadcaster also alleged that Mr. McGrane’s correspondence was inappropriate.
It claimed that he repeatedly used the expletive “c***” in professional emails. Furthermore, the network alleged that in a phone conversation regarding his return to work, Mr. McGrane was so “aggressive and inappropriate” that he reduced the director of morning television to tears. The Seven Network claimed she was left “choked up, unable to speak” and “extremely distressed.”
The Seven Network also contended that Mr. McGrane breached his contractual obligations by appearing on Four Corners in August 2024 for a report titled “Don’t Speak.” The network alleged that Mr. McGrane collaborated with his friend, journalist Louise Milligan, to “target and disparage” his employer. According to the court filing, the Seven Network claimed that Mr. McGrane described the interview as an “insurance policy” and an opportunity to “get millions” from the respondent.
The broadcaster maintained that its decision not to promote Mr. McGrane was based his “misogynistic” language used in correspondence to other staff. It also cited his “lack of capacity” as indicated by 14 separate medical certificates and the “negative feedback” from his peers.
As of February 2026, the general protections legal action initiated by Mr. McGrane remains active in the Federal Court of Australia. In late 2025, the parties took part in a mediation session that left the Fair Work general protections claim unresolved. The matter will now proceed to a court hearing at a yet to be determined date.
Read more: ‘Forced to quit’: Melbourne worker wins $27K for constructive dismissal
When something goes wrong at work, it’s not always clear whether your employer has acted lawfully. Whether you’ve been dismissed, made redundant, pressured to resign or denied workplace entitlements, you may have rights worth exploring.
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assist employees across Australia with unfair dismissal claims, general protections matters, redundancy disputes, forced resignation cases and sexual harassment complaints.
Unfair dismissal claims must be lodged within 21 days from the date of dismissal, so time is critical. Call 1800 333 666 now for your free and confidential initial consultation.
