A receptionist of a Brisbane brothel has won over $8,000 after the Fair Work Commission found she had been unfairly dismissed. The receptionist had been called vile names and sworn at by her boss. In the end, he did not even give her the respect of firing her in person – instead she learnt of her termination from a workmate.
In this article, we look at the events of this fiery unfair dismissal case Judith Grose v J.F.B. Investments Pty. Ltd [2025]. We also look at another case involving a receptionist who made an adverse action claim against a Melbourne brothel, winning a payout of over $173,000.
Judith Grose started working for J.F.B. Investments Pty Ltd as a casual receptionist in 2009. The company trades as Spoilers Relaxation Centre – a brothel in the Melbourne suburb of Ringwood. Up until 2024, 63-year-old Ms. Grose described her time at Spoilers positively.
She told the Fair Work Commission that it was like a “happy little family.” She said the brothel was “very popular” and that “some of the girls had worked there for 20 years or more.” Ms. Grose’s duties included answering the phone, making bookings, washing bed sheets and towels and stocking the rooms where the girls would see clients. Given her casual hours, her weekly earnings were $350, amounting to an annual income of approximately $18,200.00.
Around mid-2023, the management of Spoilers Relaxation Centre saw a shift with the increased involvement of the owner, Christopher Hill. Previously, Mr. Hill’s involvement was primarily limited to checking the financial records, and Ms. Grose would contact him mainly for maintenance issues. With his greater involvement, Mr. Hill took on more responsibilities related to worker rostering and had more direct contact with staff.
Critical to this unfair dismissal case was a significant change to the workplace during this period. This involved the installation of an extensive camera and microphone system throughout the premises. This was placed in the reception area, near the till, in the workers’ rooms and the stock room. Mr. Hill even put mirrors behind some cameras to ensure there were no blind spots.
Ms. Grose told the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Hill had an upstairs office from where he could monitor both video and audio feeds. He would observe interactions between staff and clients, as well as the processing of bookings and payments.
In July 2024, Ms. Grose had a facelift and subsequently took approximately two months of leave. She initially thought she would need only one month off work, and when she extended this, Mr. Hill consented. When Ms. Grose returned to work in September 2024, she encountered Mr. Hill near the reception desk, who asked “How are your boobs?” She described his delivery to the Fair Work Commission as “not particularly friendly.”
Later that day, Ms. Grose tried to find some tissues to replenish supply in the rooms. While in there, she questioned a colleague about where the tissues were and who is meant to order them. When Ms. Grose returned to reception, Mr. Hill said to her ““You’re always bitching and moaning.” He added that if she “opened [her] eyes” she would have found the tissues. It was clear to Ms. Grose that Mr. Hill had listened to her conversation in the stock room via the surveillance system.
Later that afternoon, a client visited the brothel inquiring about an “intro” to the sex workers without a booking. Following established practice, Ms. Grose told the client that this was generally not done as workers needed to “do their hair and makeup.” She told the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Hill came “running down the stairs” with a “thump thump thump.”
He began yelling at Ms. Grose in front of the client. He accused her of “trying to sabotage the joint” and mentioned “something about customer service.” Ms. Grose said she and the client felt “embarrassed” and she apologized to him. She said that afterwards Mr. Hill was “fuming,” began pacing angrily and acting erratic.
Shortly after, Ms. Grose was approached by another receptionist to speak in private. They stepped into a room that did not have surveillance. The other receptionist told Ms. Grose that Mr. Hill had instructed her to take over her shift. She also told Ms. Grose that he had asked for her to give back her keys and leave the premises. When Ms. Grose asked if she was being sacked, the other receptionist simply shrugged.
Ms. Grose handed over her keys, said goodbye to her colleagues, and left. The only subsequent contact with Mr. Hill was a text message from Ms. Grose regarding unpaid wages for her last day. Mr. Hill did not respond to this directly, although $150 was later deposited into her bank account.
Ms. Grose also told the Fair Work Commission about an incident that took place about two weeks before her surgery leave. It involved Mr. Hill running down the stairs and yelling at her “You are nothing but a backstabbing c**t.” When he started going back up the stairs, Mr. Grose yelled “Come back down and say it to my face.” The duo then got into an argument about the business.
Mr. Hill yelled at her that “as far as I’m concerned you can f**k off.” However, Ms. Grose was not dismissed and continued working normally for two weeks until her leave.
In October 2024, Ms. Grose lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. She argued that she had been fired without any valid reason or prior warning. She also said that she had not been given an opportunity to respond to any concerns about her performance or conduct.
Ms. Grose highlighted her 15 years of continuous service and the abrupt and undignified manner of her termination, being informed by a coworker rather than directly by Mr. Hill. Ms. Grose said she did not wish to be reinstated due to the hostile work environment created by Mr. Hill.
J.F.B. Investments Pty Ltd and Mr. Hill did not present any arguments or evidence to the Fair Work Commission. The Commission made numerous unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them via email, phone calls and express post. This lack of engagement meant that the Commission’s assessment was based solely on the evidence and submissions provided by Ms. Grose.
As J.F.B. Investments employed fewer than 15 people, it was subject to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. The Code outlines that an employer can sack an employee without notice only if it is reasonably believed they committed serious misconduct.
At Ms. Grose’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission first looked at whether J.F.B. Investments complied with the Code. It accepted that her sacking was “effected through a co-worker.” It also said that there was no evidence that Ms. Grose’s behavior was serious enough to warrant termination. The Commission therefore concluded that the company had violated the Code.
The Commission also determined that Ms. Grose had not been provided with procedural fairness. It accepted that she did not receive notice of her dismissal nor an opportunity to respond. It was noted that there was no evidence that she had exhibited poor performance. The Commission called out the employer for its “poor” dismissal process, in particular notifying her of termination via a colleague.
Ultimately, the Commission ruled that Ms. Grose had been unfairly dismissed. It said that she “deserved better” than being told of her sacking via a workmate, particularly given her years of loyal service. J.F.B. Investments was ordered to pay Ms. Grose $8,400.00 plus super.
Another case that involved a brothel receptionist treated unfairly by her employer is ROSA v DAILY PLANET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ANOR [2016]. Gabriella Rosa began working for Melbourne brothel Daily Planet around 2004. She left her job for a few months in 2008 due to a “misunderstanding.” But she was then convinced by the second respondent of this case, the owner of the brothel John Dennis Trimble, to return.
Ms. Rosa worked four days a week for 10.5 hours each day and was paid a flat hourly rate. She did not receive entitlements such as sick leave, holiday pay or other benefits. Ms. Rosa also did not receive designated breaks during her long shifts. Ms. Rosa’s duties were strictly administrative, and she worked under the Private Sector Award of 2010.
Ms. Rosa was dismissed in December 2011. She subsequently lodged an adverse action claim with the Fair Work Commission. In her claim, she said that Daily Planet had threatened to dismiss her, reduce her shifts, change her shift hours and ultimately sacked her. She claimed this was in response to her not wanting to sign a new employment agreement, which was her legal right not to.
This new agreement would have reclassified her from what she believed to be permanent part-time employment to casual employment. She claimed this would see her lose shifts. Ms. Rosa also argued that she had been underpaid due to the lack of entitlements afforded to a permanent part-time employee. She claimed that the absence of proper breaks entitled her to increased pay rates.
Daily Planet argued that Ms. Rosa was sacked because she did not possess a manager’s license under the Victorian Sex Work Act 1994. The business said she would not be eligible to regain it until February 2012. The Act requires a licensed manager to be on the premises of sex entertainment businesses.
Daily Planet argued that this increased their expenses as they needed the presence of another licensed manager during Ms. Rosa’s working hours. It also said that Ms. Rosa’s hourly rate exceeded the minimum award rate for casual employees and that she had opportunities for breaks.
Ms. Rosa’s adverse action case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in 2016. The Court said that Daily Planet’s reason for dismissing her – because she did not have a manager’s license – “simply does not have the ring of truth about it.” The Court noted that she had been employed without a license for some time. But just two months before she could reapply for her license, she was terminated.
The Court agreed with Ms. Rosa that the “operative reason behind her termination” was her refusal to sign the agreement. It was noted that the new agreement had a clause stating that Ms. Rosa would be a casual employee. It also stated that she “is not entitled to make any claim for unfair dismissal” with employment tribunals.
The Federal Circuit Court examined the regularity of Ms. Rosa’s shifts and hours over a significant period. It concluded that her employment was “a permanent part-time arrangement” and not one of casual work. The Court therefore said that Ms. Rosa was entitled to superannuation, holiday pay and personal/carer’s leave, which she had not received.
The Court also considered the issue of breaks, finding that Ms. Rosa “did not receive a break during her shift.” The evidence suggested that at best, she might eat while monitoring the premises via CCTV. However, this did not constitute a proper break as it did not involve a cessation of duties. The Court therefore found that she ought to have been paid additional amounts as set out in the award for the lack of breaks and for working on public holidays without overtime pay.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit Court concluded that Daily Planet took adverse action against Ms. Rosa. Its threat to alter her employment arrangements and dismissing her was unlawful under the Fair Work Act. The Court ordered Daily Planet and its sole director to pay Ms. Rosa $62,700 and $12,540 respectively in adverse action damages. It also ordered the business to pay assessed damages of $92,411.37 and $5,789.89 in unpaid superannuation. In total, this amounted to 173,441.26 in payments.
If you think your boss has punished you for exercising a workplace right or dismissed you unfairly, out team can help. We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives are Australia’s leading workplace mediators, with over 30 years of experience.
If you have been denied paid leave or faced unfair dismissal, discrimination or sexual harassment, our team can help. We are Australia’s leading workplace mediators and commentators, with 30 years of experience helping workers.
This article delves into the intricacies of sick leave from an employee’s perspective. In turn shedding light on the challenges, potential benefits, and the decision-making process involved. When an employee has health, personal or medical needs, the emotional impact can be significant. Feelings of betrayal, anger, and confusion often arise, affecting both personal and professional well-being. Additionally, the sudden loss of income and financial stability can create hardships. Further making it necessary to evaluate the potential benefits of pursuing legal action.
Seeking justice for loss of income, your human rights or unfair dismissal typically involves initiating complex proceedings. This can be a stressful and time-consuming process, involving consultations with employment lawyers. Also the gathering evidence, and attending hearings or mediation sessions. It is essential for employees to weigh the potential outcomes against the emotional and financial costs involved.
If you have been treated unfairly or dismissed for any reason Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives can help. AWDR are not lawyers. We are Australia’s leading workplace advisors and commentators. In the last two decades, we have assisted over 16,000 employees to make an unfair dismissal claim. Our team can help you understand if you can purse redress through the Fair work. We provide you invaluable guidance throughout the process. All workplace investigations, casual employees’ issues, workplace harassment.
We can help you make an adverse action or unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission and get the justice you deserve. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a free and private conversation.
