Hotel cleaner paid $10 per room under ‘exploitative arrangement’ wins remuneration

A 67-year-old hotel cleaner who was paid $10 per room has been granted compensation after the Fair Work Commission found that they were unfairly dismissed from an exploitative employment arrangement.

Commissioner Ben Redford identified a host of reasons that constitute an “obvious” unfair dismissal ruling, such as the employer’s management, below-award pay, and a poor termination process.

The cleaner was employed at the Kaniva Midway Motel in Victoria between 23 March 2025 and 25 February 2026, and was paid according to the number of rooms cleaned, averaging $10.30 per room.

Shifts were often seven days per week at a minimum of 3.5 hours.

During their employment, the worker did not receive a payslip or payment record, did not complete a Tax File Declaration Form, did not have tax deducted from their pay, and did not receive superannuation contributions. There was also no record of a written employment contract, and the cleaner was not provided with loadings or entitlements.

According to bank statements, the employee was paid directly into their account, primarily from the account of Neela Motel Pty Ltd, which was determined to be the hotel’s corporate entity and operator. The applicant often needed to follow up with a manager, Jasvir Singh, as payments were frequently missing or delayed.

Employment was terminated via text after the employee followed up on one such payment, where they received: “You should get your pay by today or tomorrow. But I have no need your service anymore after on my site [sic]. Thanks for everything.”

The conduct amounted to multiple breaches of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020.

In determining the nature of employment and therefore whether the applicant was truly terminated by the respondent, Redford noted: “I consider the evidence shows a significant level of control exercised by the Respondent and over, where and when the Applicant performed her work, particularly through the instructions she received from Mr Singh as to the number of rooms she was required to clean (and which ones) and other tasks she was directed to undertake from time to time.”

He further characterised the respondent as exercising “an exploitative arrangement perpetrated against a vulnerable older person”, noting the likely physical strain of working seven days a week.

While acknowledging that “some aspects of the relationship appear to be more consistent with a contracting arrangement”, Redford found, on balance, that the substance, reality and nature of the relationship more closely resembled employment.

In this way, it was determined that the employee was dismissed.

Regarding the reason for dismissal, Redford found “no such reason” relating to the applicant’s capacity or conduct, nor was the employee informed of any reason or given a chance to respond, strengthening the overall finding that the dismissal was harsh.

While less relevant to the determination of an unfair dismissal, Commissioner Redford identified this conduct as “disrespectful in its form and tone”.

Adding that the reason for dismissal may have been related to the applicant’s payment enquiry, which was identified as a workplace right, Commissioner Redford concluded that “the overwhelming weight of these considerations bears in favour of a finding that the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust and unreasonable”.

He ordered a total remuneration of $16,472.82, less taxation, and a $1,736.74 superannuation contribution.

Based on his reflection that the respondent likely engaged in “an exploitative employment arrangement”, Redford referred the respondent to the Fair Work Ombudsman for further investigation.

According to Patrick Will, employment lawyer at Liquid Employment Lawyers, the decision highlights the consequences of exploitative employment practices and ignoring FWC proceedings.

The unprofessional and disrespectful nature of the termination text, Will said, reinforces that “taking shortcuts with termination processes will almost always guarantee a finding that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable”.

Further, Will explained that the Commission's classification of the worker as an employee due to the employer’s high degree of control “underscores that informal, off-the-books arrangements cannot bypass employment law, they only compound liability”.

“Paying piece rates off the books instead of Award wages exposes businesses to significant back-payment liabilities, FWC compensation orders and direct referrals to the FWO for further penalties.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.