Victorian real estate group Buxton denies unfair dismissal claims from long-term female property managers
Two women at a Victorian real estate group are suing for unfair dismissal, withone one claiming she was told to ‘sort out her childcare arrangements and start working like everyone else’.
Two property managers with equity in a franchised branch of Victorian real estate group Buxton allege in separate Fair Work actions they were illegally sacked a few months apart over flexible work arrangements, and are seeking compensation.
Buxton Bentleigh property managers Phoebe Righetti and Lauren Muller, long-term colleagues who each hold 15 per cent stakes in the business and worked with the agency for about 17 years, were respectively terminated on March 13 and June 24 this year.
Ms Righetti is seeking $195,000 for future economic loss, and penalties against Buxton Bentleigh and Mark Yancos, the franchise’s managing director. Ms Muller is seeking compensation of $130,000 and penalties.
Ms Righetti alleges she was ousted after Mr Yancos “demanded” she return to work full-time after having a family, according to court documents.
Ms Muller, who also has a young family and lists Buxton Bentleigh and Mr Yancos as first and second respondents, alleged dismissal in breach of a general protection according to a limited version of her claim released by the Federal Circuit and Family Court.
Buxton Bentleigh and Mr Yancos denied all of the allegations against them.
In their joint defence to Ms Righetti’s claim, they said her application should be dismissed. “The majority of Buxton Bentleigh’s staff are female and the business does offer flexible working arrangements,” Mr Yancos told The Australian in a statement.
Buxton Real Estate Group is identified as the third respondent in Ms Muller’s court case, and CEO Marcus Williams told The Australian he is aware of the matter.
“While we are not directly involved in the employment relationship at the centre of the proceedings, we take the matter seriously and are reviewing the claims made,” he said.
“Franchisees within our network operate as independent businesses and are responsible for their own employment practices and compliance with workplace laws.”
According to allegations contained in Ms Righetti’s court claim, her employment was terminated after she worked flexibly – including part-time – since 2020, following the births of her two children.
Ms Righetti, who joined Buxton in 2008, alleged these arrangements worked fine until Mr Yancos took over as managing director and majority shareholder of the business in June last year.
After Mr Yancos joined, Ms Righetti allegedly made complaints about her employment. She alleged her salary was reduced and four parcels of shares were transferred to Mr Yancos’s company without giving her an opportunity to purchase them.
This is denied by Mr Yancos.
Ms Righetti alleged Mr Yancos directed her to attend a meeting on February 27, when he “demanded that the applicant start working full-time … at least four days in the office; and threatened to terminate the applicant’s employment.”
Ms Righetti alleged she faced demands that she “sort out her childcare arrangements and start working like everyone else”.
“The applicant was a long-serving, high-performing employee with an unblemished record. The applicant had performed her role effectively and efficiently on a part-time basis over the preceding four years,” her court documents alleged.
“The first respondent (Buxton Bentleigh) took the adverse actions set out above because the applicant (Ms Righetti) exercised workplace rights, because of the applicant’s sex, and/or because of the applicant’s family responsibilities.”
Ms Righetti alleged her employment was terminated with immediate effect.
But Buxton Bentleigh and Mr Yancos said in their defence Ms Righetti verbally agreed to increase her “working hours from 3 days to 4 days per week, with all days to be worked in the office”.
“The applicant was provided with a six month period during which she could work three days in the office and the fourth day from home,” the defence read.
The defence alleged during their February meeting, Mr Yancos said Ms Righetti agreed to work four days per week from the office “with flexibility” as needed to leave early or attend appointments.
According to Ms Righetti’s termination letter signed by Mr Yancos, included in her court documents, her termination was due to “unwillingness to comply with the contract location requirements”.
While the Federal Circuit and Family Court declined to release Ms Muller’s full statement of claim, Ms Righetti’s court documents alleged “discriminatory views” were expressed about her return to work, and said her employment was terminated on the first day of her honeymoon. Ms Muller joined the group in 2012.
“Real estate was once a bit of a boys’ club,” a Buxton memo from March said, timed to coincide with International Women’s Day campaigns. It spruiks its credentials as a workplace that champions women in leadership roles and balancing professional and family life.
More Coverage
