Massage parlour docks workers pay for lacking “passion”

Passion Pop?

April 2, 2016

In the recent Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Lu’s Healthcare Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 506 (Massage Case) massage parlours were warned that failure to comply with the obligations under modern awards and applicable employment laws will not be tolerated.

In the recent Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Lu’s Healthcare Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 506 (Massage Case) massage parlours were warned that failure to comply with the obligations under modern awards and applicable employment laws will not be tolerated.

In the Massage Case, two massage therapists were paid a percentage of the fee for each massage they performed, rather than the rates of pay that were prescribed by the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2010 (Health Award). As a result of the failure by Lu’s Healthcare Pty Ltd (the Company) to comply with the Health Award, one therapist was underpaid $33,000 and the other was underpaid $21,000.

In addition to not paying employee’s correctly, the Company “fined” employees and deducted amounts from the employee’s take home pay in accordance with the “in house code of conduct.” For example, “fines” included:

$100 - being late to work or absent without notice.
$50 - lack of passion and hospitality.
$20 - making noise, playing around and sleeping or lying on a massage table.

If an employee resisted “hard work” they would be put “back on apprenticeship again.”

As a result, the Court penalised the Company $112,860 and the director a further $5,940 for failing to comply with its obligations under both the Health Award and under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

This case serves as a reminder for all employers that if there is a modern award that is applicable to the industry the employer operates in – the employer must pay in accordance with the modern award.

In circumstances where an employer wishes to offer an incentive/bonus scheme - this must be in addition to the minimum rates of pay that have been prescribed by the modern award.

Finally, as noted above, in the Massage Case, employees were “fined” by their employer and deductions were made from their take home pay.

Employers are permitted to make deductions in accordance with law and/or as agreed with the employee in writing. If an employee’s conduct is not acceptable, employers are not permitted to “fine” an employee, instead the employee should be disciplined and their conduct addressed in accordance with the relevant policy/procedure.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

September 19, 2024

Blogs

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.

March 18, 2024

Blogs

Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.

December 20, 2022

Court temporarily reinstates employee pending adverse action claim

BRB

The probation period is commonly used by employers to assess the suitability of an employee for ongoing employment. One of the reasons that the probation period is of benefit to employers is because, when aligned with the minimum employment period set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), it allows an employer to end the employment relationship before an employee becomes entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

October 22, 2024

Blogs

How pre-employment checks minimise the risk of post-recruitment discoveries

Skeletons in the closet

You have hired an employee who appears to be perfect on paper, only to later discover that they have misrepresented or deliberately withheld information about their qualifications, employment history or problematic past. A simple and often overlooked way of mitigating unfortunate surprises like these is conducting pre-employment checks to verify whether a candidate is as suitable, qualified and impressive as their resume or interview has portrayed them to be.

October 22, 2024

Blogs

Employer did not force an employee to resign by enforcing its hybrid working arrangement

A direction you can’t resist

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 lockdowns have changed the way in which most businesses work. While working remotely has provided employers and employees with flexibility, many employers have now started directing employees to return to the workplace either full-time or under hybrid working arrangements.

October 15, 2024

Resources: Blogs

Passion Pop?