Beauty giant Mecca ‘breached’ fair work rules, head of brand claims

One of Australia’s best-known beauty retailers is embroiled in a court stoush, after one of its senior Melbourne employees said she was threatened and made to work unreasonable hours.

Mecca has declined to comment on the case. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

Mecca’s head of brand marketing has launched court proceedings against the beauty giant and its chief marketing officer, claiming management are contemplating making her position redundant when she is shortly due to return from unpaid maternity leave.

Alethea Larkin lodged her case in the Federal Court on Wednesday, in which she also alleged she was made to work unreasonable hours and was threatened by chief marketing officer Kate Blythe.

The allegations are made in Ms Larkin’s statement of claim, seen by The Australian.

Ms Larkin is asking the court to prevent Mecca from making her position redundant until there is a resolution in the court case.

She is also seeking penalties and declarations.

Jo Horgan founded Mecca in 1997, with a single store in Melbourne’s South Yarra which sold seven brands.

Jo Horgan, MECCA Cosmetica. Picture: Robbie Fimmano

The business has since expanded to become one of the country’s most successful beauty retail outfits, with more than 200 stores in Australia and New Zealand which sell more than 200 brands.

It has a consolidated revenue of about $940m and gross assets valued at about $640m, according to Ms Larkin’s statement of claim.

In her pleading, Ms Larkin said she received an alert from human resources on Tuesday calling her into a meeting in which she was told due to a restructure her position is at risk of redundancy. She said she was also told no other suitable jobs have been identified for her.

Ms Larkin said her maternity leave request was approved for a period between May 8 last year to May 13 this year.

“Between 13 December 2023 and 30 January 2024, the Applicant (Ms Larkin) made requests to arrange ‘Keep in Touch Days’ and face-to-face catch ups with Blythe to discuss and facilitate her upcoming return to work,” the court document reads.

“Despite the requests … MECCA refused and or failed to consent to and or facilitate the Applicant’s requests.”

Ms Larkin’s claim states she received a meeting invitation from Mecca’s HR business partner Sara Hekmet at about 3pm on Tuesday “to discuss proposed changes to the marketing team structure and impacts to her role”.

“MECCA notified the Applicant that the Applicant’s parental leave was used by MECCA as an opportunity to ‘test’ if her role could be absorbed into another role,” the court documents say.

She alleged she was further told the head of brand marketing was the only position in her team at risk of redundancy.

Ms Larkin then said she was later told on Tuesday a provisional decision was made to make her role redundant from February 23 or another agreed date.

A Mecca spokeswoman said the company is attempting to address the matter.

“This week we started a consultation process that remains underway, and we’re working with the relevant parties to address any concerns and consider feedback,” she said.

“As such, we’re disappointed that the courts have been involved. While the matter is before the courts, we’re unable to make any further public comments.”

In further allegations against the company, Ms Larkin claimed during her employment with Mecca since June 2021 she has been required to work more than 38-hours-per week.

Alethea Larkin. Picture: Glenn Ferguson

She alleged in 2022 and the first half of 2023 she worked “extremely long hours”.

She said she was required to prepare a large number of PowerPoint slide decks at short notice for leadership team brand visits and trips, liaise with brand representatives in multiple time zones and deliver annual brand plans and strategies for more than 200 brands

in condensed time frames.

Ms Larkin said she was also managing a team of 10–12 staff including and was “trying to act as a ‘buffer’ to shield them from adverse treatment by Ms Blythe”.

She said during her six-month probation period she had two or three conversations with then people partner Sarah Vanderkley to report “unreasonable behaviour of Blythe and the unreasonable additional hours”.

“In or about November 2021, after the Applicant had made multiple complaints and inquiries about Ms Blythe’s behaviour,” the court document reads.

“Ms Blythe confronted the Applicant and said words to the effect: ‘You made a mistake raising these issues while you’re on probation’ and ‘you’ve made yourself a target’.”