Resources: Blog

Massage parlour docks workers pay for lacking “passion”

Blog
|

Passion Pop?

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.

 

Similar articles

Employee dismissed for failing BAC tests

Cigarettes and cough lollies

In a recent unfair dismissal decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has supported an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for breaching its drug and alcohol policy despite the employer failing to strictly enforce the policy.

Read more...

Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.

Read more...

Fine following workplace fatality quadrupled following Government intervention

Work health and safety legislation in Australia places significant duties and obligations on persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to ensure the health and safety of workers.

Read more...

Commission critical of employer’s entirely email-based disciplinary process

Words flying high

Communication between the employer and employees is essential for a good working relationship. Poor communication in the disciplinary process may lead to a deficiency in the process which renders the dismissal unfair.

Read more...

Dismissals for temporary illnesses under the FW Act

Red Light, Green Light

Within the general protections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), there is a protection afforded to employees who are temporarily absent from work because of an illness or injury.

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.