A spokesperson for CBS, which is responsible for administering liquor licensing in South Australia, told InDaily this morning the agency was “assessing the matter”.

In SA it is illegal to employ a minor to sell, supply or serve liquor unless there are special circumstances – including where the minor is a child of the licencee – and normally with the approval of the licensing authority.

Yesterday, InDaily reported that Fancy Burgers would have to repay “adult” wages to Sian Downes, who had worked at the store as a 17-year-old, following a decision of the Industrial Relations Court.

The store’s legal representatives argued in court that Downes was not “engaged in supplying or dispensing liquor” because another employee, aged 18 years or over, would always open the bottle before Downes poured it and gave it to the customer.

However, Industrial Magistrate Stephen Lieschke ruled that this fact did not negate Downes’ “central role and legal responsibility in supplying and dispensing liquor”.

She claimed Fancy Burgers had underpaid her more than $16,000 by keeping her paid under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010, rather than the Restaurant Industry Award 2010.

The latter award requires that “junior employees working as liquor service employees must be paid at the adult rate of pay”.

“An older employee would nearly always open the bottle, but only sometimes pour the drink and hand it to the customer,” Leischke’s judgement says.

“I conclude the applicant [Downes] was engaged in the supplying or dispensing of liquor throughout her employment.”

InDaily asked Fancy Burgers’ legal representation if the store had acquired any authorisation to employ Downes serving alcohol as a minor.

Coates Lawyers issued the following statement on behalf of their client.

“Whilst FB2 respects the legal process, the judgement of the Commissioner in this matter has a number of findings of fact that are incorrect and not supported by the evidence, in particular with respect to the service of alcohol by minors, and errors of law in the determination of the appropriate award for this type of business.

However it has been the decision of FB2 that proceeding to appeal this matter would incur significant legal expense, in effectively a no costs jurisdiction, and therefore is not commercially viable at this point in time.

Even if FB2 were successful on appeal then the amount that has been awarded to the claimant would be subsumed in legal costs rather than being of some benefit to their former worker.

Further, that to prolong litigation against the claimant does not achieve anything in the circumstances as ultimately it places unnecessary ongoing stress upon all parties.

The issue of the proper application of the correct National Award has now been addressed and FB2 does not expect any further issues with past or present employees.”