This week a Melbourne cafe, Barry, has joined the long long list of employers under fire for accusations of underpayment.
To recap: it was revealed that employees at Barry were underpaid by around $5/hour and didn’t receive any penalty rates. A picture of the, shall we say, spartan contract circulated which detailed the agreement:
The employees who came forward now claim they have had their shifts indefinitely cut, and after protests followed, the cafe owners have reportedly threatened to sue their workers for harassment. The circumstances are not unique — as a glance at the Fair Work Ombudmsan media releases will tell you — but Barry is a particularly useful box-checking exercise, when figuring out your rights at work.
Can I sign away my minimum wage?
Nope. Under the Fair Work Act any agreement to conditions below those set in the National Employment Standards or the applicable award has no effect. A workforce (usually with the help of a union) can negotiate a collective agreement that varies those conditions but it must be assessed and registered with the Fair Work Commission, who assess it against the relevant conditions and makes sure the affected employees are not worse off. Although, the last few years has shown this system to be far from foolproof.
Can I get paid in food?
Nope. You can’t be paid “in-kind” — not in goods, services, lodgings, food, nor fawning or flattery. It has to be those real-life dollarydoos, that hardcore scratch, that real-time moolah.
Can I get fired, or lose shifts if I ark up about my pay?
Nope! The Act sets out certain protected workplace rights and you can’t be disadvantaged if you exercise them. They are wide and varied (taking in freedom of association, freedom from discrimination) but they include “the capacity under a workplace law to make a complaint or inquiry”.
Thus Barry staff have the right to enforce their minimum conditions without suffering what the Act calls adverse action — for example losing shifts, or being fired, or being coerced with the threat of legal action. Like a lot of employment law, it’s great in theory, but hard to prove; how can you illustrate what was in your employer’s heart when they cut back your shifts?
But can they sue you?
Harrassment, the word used in Barry’s email to their staff, is like bullying — there is a colloquial understanding that doesn’t necessary reach the legal definition. Whether this is a clumsy misuse or not, as it happens there is currently no Commonwealth harassment act, nor an established civil cause of action for harassment established by the courts. That a harasser has trespassed, or committed assault or nuisance has to be established.
The email says the “harassment” is hurting and devaluing the business — however as a company, Barry cannot sue for defamation.
Do you have your own hospo horror stories? Get in touch with comments, responses or tips at boss@crikey.com.au.
As Sally McManus quite rightly says #Itstimetochangetherules.
And, anything extra, we’ll pay you in rum.
My niece, a student was being paid $14.00 p/h working in a coffee shop.
She asked for an increase and was told “if you don’t like it, there’s the door, there’s plenty more I can get”.
I advised her to join a union.
She is now getting $18.00 p/h in another workplace, still not great but better than what she was getting.
Pretty sure adverse action has a reverse onus of proof. The employer has to prove they weren’t taking adverse action. (Section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth))
With $5 being the minimum now, how much longer before coffee shops becoming the equivalent of H2G2 shoe shops?
We can’t be far from the event horizon, surely?
Some highland villages, from Bleakheath to Bowel and whatever is the mexican equivalent of w/e range for some bracing air and overpriced, burnt beans.
The Revolution ate itself, this is the apre latte.