Fair Work Commission weighs in on unfair dismissal claim
A Melbourne sex worker’s unfair dismissal claim has been thrown out after the Fair Work Commission found that she was an independent contractor and not an employee.
Lucy Helft lodged the claim against the Top of the Town brothel in June after being told that she would not get any more shifts, The Australian reported. After a series of disputes with her manager, Helft was terminated due to “unacceptable and threatening behaviour,” the brothel said.
Top of the Town said that Helft had worked there as an independent contractor, and therefore was not protected from unfair dismissal, as she was not an employee as defined by the Fair Work Act. The brothel claimed that it merely provided booking, introduction, accommodation and other support and statutory services to sex workers, who in turn provided services to customers “in the conduct of their sole trader business activities.”
Top of the Town sought to have Helft’s claim dismissed on the basis that it was beyond jurisdiction, The Australian reported.
Helft, who worked at the brothel since 2019, said she was employed as a casual employee, and as such was eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. She said she remembered signing a contract, but couldn’t recall its terms or produce a copy, The Australian reported.
Top of the Town said that upon starting work at the brothel, every new sex worker received a booklet stating that they were classified as an independent contractor.
Helft said that the brothel required her to work a six-hour minimum shift, adhere to its “sexy, sassy and sophisticated” dress code, and not delegate work for shifts. She said Top of the Town set prices for her services. She also said she was expected to comply with the brothel’s instructions about how she worked, including a prohibition from using her personal phone on the floor when clients were present. She was also expected to use equipment supplied by Top of the Town, including towels, condoms, lubricant, sheets and other hygiene and cleaning supplies, The Australian reported.
In its ruling, the FWC found that Helft determined when she worked by notifying Top of the Town of her availability and preferred shifts. She also had the right to refuse bookings and charge different amounts or adjust her services for each client. The commission also said that Top of the Town’s expectation that she work a minimum six-hour shift reflected a necessary operational requirement.
The FWC said that as Helft retained the absolute right to refuse to provide services at any point, “it follows Ms Helft provided sex work on an engagement-by-engagement basis.”
The commission also accepted that there were rights and obligations between the parties when it came to restrictions on mobile phone use, dress codes and other areas, The Australian reported.
