Questions have been raised over the legality of an employment contract reportedly offered to a new hire of a Sydney entertainment agency.
An image of the lacklustre document was shared online Wednesday and was immediately ridiculed over its distinct lack of professionalism.
Social media users were asked for their opinions on whether it was a legal work contract.
At the top of the page was the name Matt and underneath it read, “permanent full time”.
Below, it listed remuneration details including that the employee would be paid $21 per hour.
They would earn a gross wage of $787.50 weekly, and a net income of $689.50, the basic form said.
The employee was also told they would get 10 per cent superannuation.
Underneath a large blank space, the recipient was informed of the role’s “4 Weeks Holiday Leave”, and “10 days sick leave”, with the letters PA – seemingly referencing per annum – handwritten in red ink.
The final detail of the supposed contract was that the employee would have a “6 Month probation” period.
Respondents were fast to pick out a multitude of issues with the contract, with one of the most concerning issues the hourly rate being below the current national minimum wage of $21.38.
“Isn’t that lower than the minimum wage?” one wrote, with others confirming it was.
“Seems weird for them to risk embarrassment for just 0.38c per hour,” someone else added.
“I think more often than not, these things are due to incompetence rather than outright malice. But maybe I’m just an optimist,” another said.
One of the other more glaring issues was the bizarre lack of any professional template or branding.
“I’ve seen emails from a Nigerian Prince more professional than this,” one respondent joked, referencing common scam emails from people claiming to be overseas royalty.
Another problem pointed out was the superannuation rate being .5 per cent lower than the current national minimum.
“The other basic terms are fairly normal but the presentation is like a Rachael Ray Pad Thai!
Surely a standard employment contract template could be found?” one respondent added.
“How …. amateur and unprofessional,” another said, while others thought the contract looked more like a memo or a “heads up” about what might be contained in an official contract.
In response to some of the discussion, the person behind the post revealed the contract was from early 2022, which was before the minimum wage and superannuation increases took effect.
They said the contract was “still pathetic” though, and “you would think they would at least use a template”.
They also said they worked with the company for about a year and it had been “the worst working experience of my life”.