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

One of U Pull It's employees worked nine-hour weekend shifts without adequate breaks, the SA Employment Tribunal found. (ABC News: Mark Rigby)

A South Australian automotive dismantler has been issued a $25,000 penalty for preventing a worker from leaving the worksite on weekends and public holidays during meal breaks.

The state's employment tribunal found U Pull It and the Motor Trade Association made threats to the employee to drop the claim as well as threats to accept a financial offer.

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.

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".

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'."

The tribunal found the MTA sent threats about costs via email. (Reuters: Samantha Sais)

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