Two managers challenge fixed salary arrangements, while employer disagrees
The South Australian Employment Tribunal recently addressed a significant wages claim where two workers argued their annual salaries failed to meet minimum Award entitlements despite extensive overtime hours.
The workers, who jointly managed a holiday park, claimed they routinely worked well beyond their scheduled hours, including early mornings, late evenings, and overnight stays.
Despite raising concerns about excessive work demands multiple times, they said their employer didn't provide additional resources or proper compensation.
Their case highlighted several crucial workplace issues:
The workers managed a 13.5-acre holiday park from July 2020 to July 2022, earning annual salaries of $55,000, later increased to $60,000.
The park included 250 accommodation sites ranging from caravan spaces to cabins, with facilities like a BMX track, mini golf course, and heated outdoor pool.
The managing director admitted hiring both workers as a "package deal" despite only wanting one manager, saying the business was "desperate." Neither had previous caravan park management experience.
Their contract required them to work a minimum of 38 hours per week, plus "reasonable" additional hours.
The tribunal found they supervised one full-time assistant manager and one part-time employee, while casual cleaners' hours remained under the employer's control.
Their duties included managing guest bookings, providing information services, supervising staff, maintaining grounds, and coordinating with cleaners.
A central dispute was whether the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 applied. The employer argued both roles exceeded the Award's highest classification level since they managed the business rather than just supervising operations.
The tribunal examined their actual duties against the Award's classification scheme. It found their primary role focused on front office operations and daily supervision, with additional duties across different classification streams as permitted by the Award.
Evidence showed regular work outside scheduled hours. Phone records indicated numerous work calls before 8:30 AM and after 5:00 PM. They also performed overnight guest assistance duties and additional unscheduled shifts to cover leave periods.
The tribunal found the employer failed to keep adequate time records as required by section 557C of the Fair Work Act 2009. This placed the burden of proof on the employer to disprove the workers' claims about their hours.
The human resources officer confirmed the workers had "raised with her in numerous conversations that they were working excess overtime hours." Despite these concerns being escalated to management, no additional resources were provided.
The tribunal noted: "Payment of a low salary for a job that requires more than 38 hours a week without a record of those hours creates an obvious risk of underpayment, hence the legal obligation."
The tribunal classified both workers as Front Office Grade 3 under the Award, rejecting the employer's argument that they were Award-free senior managers.
The decision stated: "[The workers'] primary role was to take responsibility for the daily operations of the park to facilitate guest visits."
The case concluded with their dismissal after giving eight weeks' notice. When asked to attend a meeting in person, they offered to meet by video instead. The employer interpreted this as resignation with immediate effect, which the tribunal found incorrect.
The tribunal ordered the employer to pay the workers their Award entitlements, including overtime payments and wages for their notice periods. Both parties were directed to submit calculations based on the findings before final orders and declarations of contraventions would be made.
