Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
Key points
- The Fair Work Commission found a female chef was unjustly paid less than her male peers.
- But Elena Sabbatini lost her case as she had quit Peter Rowland Group due to the mistreatment.
- Equal pay orders can only be issued to rectify future pay for current employees, not fix past inequality.
- Professor Andrew Stewart says the case shows Australia needs cheaper, faster and more accessible remedies for individual workers.
For almost two years, Elena Sabbatini dedicated her life to being a chef at the Peter Rowland Group.
Then she discovered, in February, that three male chefs de partie working alongside her at the upmarket caterer’s Docklands kitchen were paid $15,000 a year more than her $65,000 annual salary.
Chef Elena Sabbatini took the Peter Rowland Group to the Fair Work Commission seeking an equal remuneration order.Credit: Justin McManus
“I was furious because I gave pretty much everything for my job,” she said.
Sabbatini quit in disgust and took her employer to the Fair Work Commission seeking compensation, in a case legal experts say has broader implications and highlights the need for reform.
The commission decision details how Sabbatini was paid less than her three male peers for the same work. Four former colleagues gave evidence that, if anything, she performed better. Peter Rowland Group did not dispute these facts at the tribunal.
The commission dismissed a defence offered by Peter Rowland Group – that the three men were paid more under a “retention strategy” to reward them for spending more time at the company as casuals, rather than because they were male.
“That premise is misconceived,” the decision handed down on July 17 reads. “It is not necessary for rates of pay to have been established for a gender-discriminatory reason in order to obtain an equal remuneration order.”
The tribunal found she deserved equal pay, saying it was “clear” that “gender inequality in remuneration existed”, but it eventually dismissed the Italian-born chef’s application for $12,500 for the wage discrepancy (over her 10 months in the full-time role), $2173 in missed holiday pay and $3000 for “extreme stress” plus unpaid overtime.
The tribunal decision says it could not order Peter Rowland Group to pay Sabbatini because she launched legal action nine days after quitting, and equal pay orders could be made only for current employees. Even if she was still employed, it could only lift her wage, not order backpay for the time spent being underpaid.
“It is difficult to read Section 302 [of the Fair Work Act] as indicative of an intention that equal remuneration orders could operate to remedy past instances of unequal remuneration,” the decision said.
“I think it’s unreal,” Sabbatini said. “Something like that should never happen, especially in Australia, which I believe [is] a pretty fair country to live in. I needed to get out of that place.”
University of Adelaide labour law expert Andrew Stewart said the case was significant because it confirmed individuals could only use equal pay provisions if they remained with their employer.
“Most employees do not take their employers to court,” he said. “So it’s going to take a brave employee to run a similar claim.”
Stewart said the provisions were designed to address structural inequality for large groups of workers, such as historically underpaid female-dominated industries, but nothing stopped a single person from using them.
Sabbatini says a pay disparity such as hers “should never happen, especially in Australia”.Credit: Justin McManus
Anti-discrimination laws, at federal and state levels, were an alternative to remedy past pay injustices for individuals, such as women who suffered wage inequity, he said. But they were often inaccessible.
“Except in South Australia and Queensland, discrimination laws effectively require you to pursue a claim in court to get any legal remedies,” Stewart said, explaining this protracted, formal process also meant an applicant might have to pay their employer’s legal fees.
“Cost, delay, uncertainty of outcome – there’s a reason why we don’t tend to see equal pay matters being brought by individuals, even under discrimination laws,” he said. “But I think that says something. There’s a huge amount of evidence about a lack of pay equity in our society.”
Sabbatini’s case, Stewart said, “does help strengthen the argument that, if this case is going to be a discrimination remedy, shouldn’t there be a more effective system – particularly for unrepresented, un-unionised workers – to have their claim dealt with in a fairly quick way?
“I certainly would see that as involving conciliation and the Fair Work Commission. And then if that didn’t succeed, a Fair Work court that’s set up to operate quickly.”
Professor Dominique Allen, a Monash University labour law expert, said discrimination laws required workers to prove to a higher legal standard, which was often difficult without costly legal help.
“You would have to show she was treated less favourably because of her sex. It’s often hard to show that link,” she said.
Sabbatini said her kitchen colleagues were stunned she was paid less, particularly as executive chef Shannon McKay had asked the company to pay all casual chefs a $65,000 annual salary when they were put on full-time contracts in December 2021. McKay is now in a relationship with Sabbatini.
The Fair Work decision notes one male fellow chef de partie was paid the same as Sabbatini for a time. But he started his full-time wage on January 4, 2022 – about four months before Sabbatini was offered hers. The male chef left in July 2022.
Peter Rowland Group is known for its fine-dining catering.Credit: Simon Schluter
Two other chefs on $80,000 also began their contracts in January 2022, the Fair Work decision says. A third on $80,000 started full-time in December 2022.
“They just treated me with the least respect I can get. And I just felt it was because I am a woman, first, and second, because I’m not an Australian citizen,” Sabbatini said.
Elena Sabbatini’s burns after a workplace accident.
After joining Peter Rowland Group in April 2021, Sabbatini said, her life revolved around work – and she embraced it. She moved to Docklands to be close to the kitchen, often worked considerable overtime to finish well after dusk while starting before dawn, and took on extra jobs.
“I used to love working there. I used to love the team. And I really didn’t care much [about money],” she said.
Last December, her aunt who raised her died in Italy. Having to stay in Australia to eventually gain residency, Sabbatini could not fly back to say goodbye. She said she came to work instead to see kitchen colleagues she considered her Australian family. She ended the day in hospital with accidental burns to her right arm.
“During that time, I was feeling extremely depressed,” Sabbatini said. “Out of curiosity, I asked one of the chef de parties – a good friend – how much they were getting paid.
“I saw black – all I could see was all the sacrifices that I gave for the company. It wasn’t about money – it never was. It was just the way they treated me.
“The way they just didn’t give a damn about me.”
Peter Rowland Group’s Docklands headquarters.Credit: Justin McManus
Peter Rowland Group’s eponymous founder established the business in 1962 before it developed a reputation for fine-dining catering at prestigious events such as the Melbourne Cup and for Rich Listers such as Kerry Packer.
The business, once known as Peter Rowland Catering, encountered financial difficulty in the mid-2010s. It collapsed in 2017 before Melbourne-based developer and investment firm Capital Alliance paid $3.6 million and took on the wound-up company’s $7 million in debt, forming the current group.
Peter Rowland Group declined to comment.
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
