Near-maximum compensation for casual receptionist sacked via co-worker

A long-standing employee at a Victorian adult venue has been awarded close to six months’ wages as compensation for her summary dismissal actioned in September 2024, with the Fair Work Commission finding that the employer’s small size and lack of HR expertise could “not excuse the use of a proxy to terminate a long-term employee by communicating ‘give me your keys and leave’”.

The 63-year-old receptionist had worked two shifts per week over 15 years’ service with the legal brothel and described the workplace as a “thriving business” and a “happy little family”, claiming there were only two instances in her “loyal” service in which the business owner had criticised her performance. Both interactions had occurred during 2024, with the business owner being less involved in the day-to-day running of the enterprise in the years prior.

Around mid-2023, when the owner became progressively more involved with the running of the business, he began installing cameras and microphones to monitor staff and client interactions; the owner would reportedly watch the footage from his office on premises. In mid-2024, approximately two weeks before the receptionist was due to take leave for cosmetic surgery, the owner had confronted her, accusing her of being “nothing but a backstabbing c*nt”, leading to a heated exchange about bookings and the business. The owner allegedly told the receptionist he didn’t care whether she stayed or left and “yelled” that she could “f*ck off”, though the receptionist continued in her employment and took her pre-planned leave a fortnight later. When the receptionist had to extend her leave due to her recovery taking longer than expected, the brothel manager had replied positively, saying, “You take as long as you need, we’re looking forward to you coming back”.

The receptionist resumed work on 12 September 2024 and early in her shift, before other staff had arrived, the owner approached her and asked, “How are your boobs?”. The receptionist replied, “You know that’s not what I had”, while observing the owner’s manner was “sort of a bit cold, a bit off hand not particularly friendly.” Sometime later the owner confronted the receptionist at her workstation for complaining about not being able to find tissues in the stock room – a discussion the owner had obviously witnessed via the surveillance footage – telling her, “You’re always b*tching and moaning. If you opened your eyes you’d find where they were.” The owner returned to his office and the day progressed as “a good workday with a lot of bookings”, until a prospective client arrived later in the afternoon.

The owner, who was reportedly enraged by the receptionist alerting the prospective client to the fact that it was unlikely any of the “girls” would be interested in engaging in an introduction without the client making a booking, came “running down the stairs” into the foyer and started yelling at her in front of the client that she was “trying to sabotage the joint”. After the owner “made all the girls intro”, the receptionist apologised to the client, conceding they were both “embarrassed”, while the owner was “fuming” and “being erratic”. Shortly thereafter, one of the other employees asked the receptionist for a “private word”, so they stepped into a changing area, being one of the few spaces in the venue that was not monitored by surveillance. The co-worker bluntly explained, “[the owner] has called me in to take over your shift.  You’re to give me your keys and leave.” The co-worker repeated this explanation and “shrugged” when the receptionist asked if it meant she had been “sacked”. The receptionist handed over her keys, “said goodbye to the other girls”, collected her belongings and left.

The business owner failed to participate in Commission proceedings, despite being given numerous opportunities to do so. With no evidence being advanced to support the reasons for termination, Commissioner Perica was unable to find there was a valid reason for dismissal. In addition, the Commissioner observed that the process adopted in effecting the dismissal was “poor”, “even considering the lower expectations of a process of termination by a small business”. Furthermore, Commissioner Perica had regard for the receptionist’s 15 years of “loyal service”, adding, “fairness dictates she deserved better than an immediate dismissal communicated through a coworker”.

Finding the receptionist’s dismissal was unfair but agreeing that reinstatement was inappropriate given the relationship between the receptionist and the business owner had “utterly broken down”, Commissioner Perica commenced his calculations of compensation at the maximum award of six months’ wages. The Commissioner was sympathetic to the reasons which had prevented the receptionist from seeking and securing alternative employment since her dismissal, acknowledging that “given her age and line of work, it would have been difficult”, but he suggested that she could have done more to mitigate her loss. Commissioner Perica opted to discount the compensation amount by two weeks wages, settling on an award of 24 weeks, or $8,400 (gross), plus superannuation.

Grose v J.F.B. Investments Pty. Ltd. [2025] FWC 1126 (23 April 2025)