In this latest article in our series on employers ‘dangling the carrot’, we look at the way they lure you in during the recruitment stage with lies and false promises. It’s sad to say this is a common experience for many job seekers, with a recent study revealing over a third (36%) of hiring managers admit to lying during the recruitment stage.
Three-quarters (75%) of dishonest managers admitted to lying during the interview process, while half (52%) mislead candidates in the official job description. A quarter (24%) even carried the deception through to the offer letter.
Unfortunately, this type of employer dishonesty often goes unpunished as they hold the power during the recruitment stage. They can lie about things like pay and flexible working, only to reveal the true nature of the job once the employee has accepted. At this stage, the employee has already quit their previous job. This leaves them in a lose-lose situation.
If they go ahead with the role, the employee must begrudgingly accept not only the lesser benefits but also the fact that they were brazenly lied to. On the other hand, if they make a moral stand against the employer’s lies by walking away, they face unemployment.
Fortunately, in some cases workers can seek justice for this kind of treatment, even before they become an employee of the company, by making a Fair Work general protections claim.
Tales of employers fattening up job candidates with false promises, only to butcher them later on, abound on social media. On Reddit, a worker told their story of how they were brazenly lied to about pay during an interview. The worker had applied for a full-time “head expeditor” role (i.e. someone who coordinates tasks and workflows). The job ad said that the company would offer “minimum pay of 18/hr.”
The worker got the job. But during a follow up interview, they were handed a job offer that was markedly different from the job ad. The worker was offered $16 per hour, which they reluctantly accepted due to being “desperate for work.” The worker figured they could just work more hours to make up for the lesser pay.
But the worker learnt of even more worse lies as time went on. Their manager had taken them on an office tour, where the worker was introduced to others as the “head expeditor.” However, they soon learned that not only were they not the head expeditor, but they were “not full time” also. But it gets worse. The worker discovered that they were “barely even part time” after looking at their work schedule.
Instead of the full-time hours they were led to expect, the company scheduled them for a mere “four hours total” over a two-week period. At $16 an hour, this left the worker expected to “live off 64 f***ing dollars” for an entire fortnight. The worker said that all up, their salary ended up being “not even 25%” of what they were promised during the recruitment process.
The worker confronted their manager about the raw deal they’d received, but the company “tried to turn it” on them. The worker claimed management acted as if they were “stupid for misunderstanding” the original agreement. The employee reported that everyone in the company began treating them like the “biggest idiot on the planet” simply because they were “repeating the same things” they were originally promised.
However, this story ended on a positive note. Within a month, the worker got their old job back. On top of that, the worker said they received two other offers with “actual full time positions” paying $5 per hour more.
Returning to the study mentioned previously, it revealed that while only 6% of hiring managers lie “all the time,” a quarter (24%) said they do it “most of the time.” This behaviour is largely tolerated. 80% of respondents stated that lying is either “very acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable” within their company.
The study revealed that the reasons why these lying managers lie so much include:
The most frequently lied about topics are related directly to the job’s daily reality and future prospects:
Beyond lying, the survey also found that the vast majority of lying manager are also guilty of ghosting candidates. Notably, one in ten of these dishonest managers admitted they have ghosted a candidate after sending them a job offer letter.
While employer lying during recruitment is happening all the time, Australia’s national employment watchdog the Fair Work Ombudsman is cracking down on it. In October 2025, the Fair Work Ombudsman announced that it has handed out over $185,000 in penalties since new laws banning dodgy job ads came into effect.
In the 2024–25 financial year, the Fair Work Ombudsman issued 318 infringement notices to employers who attempted to lure candidates with illegal salaries. This resulted in $111,300 in fines. In the previous financial year, nearly $74,000 in fines were handed out.
The Fair Work Ombudsman has prioritised monitoring industries like fast food, restaurants, and cafés along with disability support services. This is due to their high employment rates of young people and migrants. Examples of fines handed out include:
In each case, the FWO’s intervention not only imposed a fine but also forced the employer to remove or amend the advertisement.
Arguably worse than being misled during the recruitment process is having a job offer retracted at the last minute. Sometimes, an employer will take advantage of new workers by requiring them to attend unpaid training. They know that it’s hard for the worker to refuse, given they would have already quit their previous job. This is what happened in the Fair Work general protections case Mrs. Sonia Argentier v City Perfume Retail Pty Ltd [2023].
Sydney-based Sonia Argentier applied for the position of Fragrance Brand Ambassador at City Perfume Retail in April 2023. The company confirmed her success following an online interview on 6 April 2023. On the same day, she received and accepted an invitation via the ‘Deputy’ app to join the workforce and was sent onboarding documentation. Mrs. Argentier completed the documentation and provided her tax and superannuation information.
A key detail in this Fair Work general protections case was Mrs. Argentier’s employment contract. It was signed by her on 12 April 2023 and by a company director the next day. The contract specified the agreed start date as 18 April 2023. Following the signing, City Perfume Retail sent Mrs. Argentier a message confirming the onboarding was complete. She was told she would be “rostered on next week.” Mrs. Argentier was then allocated her first shifts.
Ms. Argentier’s Fair Work general protections claim detailed how the dispute arose in the days immediately preceding her start date. On April 17 2023, a day before she was to start her employment with City Perfume Retail, Mrs. Argentier inquired whether a training session she was requested to attend a few days later would be paid. The company told her that the session was for ‘professional development’ and would be unpaid. Mrs. Argentier replied that she therefore would not be attending the session.
Later that day, City Perfume Retail sent a message informing Mrs. Argentier that the Brand Ambassador role had been withdrawn from the market and was no longer available. Hours later, Mrs. Argentier responded saying that the way she had been handed her termination of employment was “not correct.” City Perfume Retail subsequently removed her rostered shifts for the upcoming days from the Deputy app. Mrs. Argentier later lodged a Fair Work general protections claim.
City Perfume Retail lodged a jurisdictional objection to Ms. Argentier’s Fair Work general protections claim. The company argued that her termination of employment had not occurred because her employment had not formally commenced. It contended that Mrs. Argentier had not ‘officially’ started on the job as she had not undertaken any duties. She had also not received access to company systems and her onboarding was incomplete, City Perfume Retail argued. The company claimed that Mrs. Argentier’s reply saying she would not attend unpaid training amounted to her terminating her own employment.
Mrs. Argentier argued to the Fair Work Commission that she had been dismissed by City Perfume Retail’s message on 18 April 2023. She contended that the company had breached Part 3-1 of the general protections within the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, because she was terminated for exercising a workplace right. In this case, for making an enquiry about being paid for attending pre-commencement training.
The jurisdictional objection to Ms. Argentier’s general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in July 2023. It determined that an employment relationship did in fact exist on 18 April 2023. The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that the performance of work and payment of wages would generally suggest an employment relationship. However, it stressed that surrounding circumstances had to be taken into account.
The Fair Work Commission observed that a written contract had been fully executed by both parties. This stated that the company intended to create an employment relationship, commencing on 18 April 2023. The Fair Work Commission also noted that Mrs. Argentier had completed all onboarding steps and was communicating with the employer via the rostering app. This showed that she was considered part of the City Perfume Retail’s workforce.
The Fair Work Commission also found that Mrs. Argentier’s employment contract had a clause that restricted her ability to work for another employer without the company’s consent. This restriction took effect when the contract was entered into and was seen as a reflection of an employee’s common law duty of fidelity. The Fair Work Commission also took into account the fact that Mrs. Argentier had been allocated shifts and given directions about attendance at mandatory training.
The Fair Work Commission confirmed that the termination of employment was at the employer’s initiative. It noted that the message sent on 18 April 2023 was an “unequivocal” written notice of termination, immediately followed by the removal of Ms. Argentier’s rostered shifts. The argument that Mrs. Argentier’s reply constituted a resignation was rejected.
Given these findings, City Perfume Retail’s jurisdictional objection to the Fair Work general protections claim was dismissed. Ms. Argentier’s claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a conference between the two parties.
Read more: Adverse Action Case Shows Job Applicants Lack Right to Complain
When employers lure workers in with false promises, retract job offers or punish them for exercising their rights, the law may offer protection. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) helps workers challenge this kind of conduct by lodging a Fair Work general protections claim.
For over 20 years, our team has helped employees who’ve been misled, pressured, or terminated for exercising workplace rights, such as questioning pay, hours, or unpaid training. We can help you take action and get justice. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a private and complimentary consultation.
Hungry for more? Listen to our latest podcast episode, where we dive deeper into the ‘dangling the carrot’ tactics of the workplace—from manipulative promotion traps to the high-profile case of an executive pushed to the brink.
