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

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.

Read more...

Workplace bullying and reasonable management action

Just Managing

Workplace bullying can be extremely serious and should not be tolerated by employers.

Read more...

How a region banded together to improve employment standards

Group Effort

No employer operates in a silo – all employers operate in complex systems of interrelated stakeholders including employees, customers, other businesses, and regulators who enforce the laws that apply to the employer and their business.

Read more...

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.

Read more...

Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.

Read more...

Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.

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.