Natasha Seymour had always dreamed of working in publishing. But when her bookshop employer terminated her employment after she discussed her pay with colleagues, Seymour says she feared for her future in the industry.
“It felt like not just a rejection from the bookshop but from the industry as a whole, given how small it is,” she said.
“I was worried about my chances of finding other work.”
Seymour’s employment at Hill of Content, which refers to itself as Melbourne’s oldest bookstore, ended after her employer accused her of breaking “trust and confidentiality” in discussing her wage increase and associated back pay with other employees. It also accused her upsetting a senior staff member and reducing her shifts once she was awarded back pay to take on another job.
Her case will come before the federal circuit court later this month in what is expected to be a test of new laws that prevent employers gagging workers for speaking about their pay. The federal industrial relations changes came into effect in December and aim to reduce pay secrecy to help close the gender pay gap.
Seymour, 29, joined the bookshop in July as a casual retail assistant, working an average of 26 hours a week.
After her employer agreed to move Seymour to a higher pay level under the retail award, she received a back payment in January of $659, dated back to mid-September.
She says she subsequently spoke to two fellow casual employees about her pay.
In Seymour’s termination email, sent in February, Hill of Content co-owner Duncan Johnston said he was “extremely upset” at Seymour’s “total disregard for confidentiality in anything that occurs between employer and employee”.
“You broke our trust and confidentiality in talking to other junior staff about your back pay and wage increase,” he wrote.
Johnston said that the pay increase had been provided not because her duties aligned with a higher level under the award but as a promotion granted because they viewed her as “future assistant management material”.
“To be a level-three payment recipient you have to do a majority of the items in level three not just one item,” he said.
Seymour’s representation of her pay increase to colleagues had “totally unsettled our other staff and undermined our relationship with them”, Johnston wrote.
He also said Seymour went on to reduce her shifts after she had secured the pay increase and back payment.
While not wishing to speak about matters before the court, Johnston told Guardian Australia the bookshop was a small family-owned business that had “always treated our casual staff fairly and as part of the family”.
‘Empower workers to speak up’
The director of the Young Workers Centre, which is representing Seymour, Felicity Sowerbutts, said the case was “significant for all workers”.
“We want it to empower workers to speak up,” she said.
Speaking generally, Sowerbutts said only employers benefited from pay secrecy.
“Pay secrecy is one of the reasons we have a gender pay gap and a racial pay gap,” she said.
The gender pay gap in Australia is 13.3%, which is a record low but means women continue to earn 87 cents for every dollar of their male counterparts.
Sowerbutts said allowing workers to discuss pay would boost transparency to ensure they get paid the same amount for doing the same job.
There is no allegation of a gender or racial pay gap at the Hill of Content bookstore.
Seymour’s legal team allege in court documents her dismissal breached her workplace right to discuss pay, as granted by Fair Work Act changes that took effect in December. From 7 June, pay secrecy terms were no longer allowed to be included in any employment contracts.
While Guardian Australia has seen the statement of claim filed in court, the bookshop is yet to file its submissions.
Michelle Brown, professor of human resource management at the University of Melbourne, said international research suggested improving pay transparency was “part of the toolkit of reducing the gender pay gap”.
Studies in the UK, US, Canada and Denmark have all reported a decline in the gender pay gap due to legislation that promotes pay transparency.
Seymour, who nows works in publishing, said she was not aware of the new pay secrecy reform when she received the email saying she would not receive further shifts. But she is hopeful her case could have flow-on effects for other workers to improve pay transparency.
“If that becomes more visible, the right to talk about your pay and know what other people at your workplace are getting paid, that would be good.”
