Her following tenure with People Shop would only last a total of 25 days after enduring “repugnant” working conditions based on requirements from “the boss” Shivesh Kuksal and director Lulu Xu.

The firm has become notorious for its controversial practices, including for the behaviour of Kuksal, Xu, and lawyer Peter Ansell in a number of Supreme Court proceedings.

On the day of signing her contract, Kuksal required the solicitor to begin work right away. She proceeded to work until 11pm that evening until she was driven to the hospital by Kuksal and Xu to visit her mother, who had fallen ill at around 7pm.

These extreme hours became a habitual process for the solicitor, who the following day allegedly did not finish until “around midnight”.

Over the first four days of her employment, the solicitor worked an estimated 51.25 hours – including a shift that began at 10:45am on a Saturday and did not conclude until 12.30pm the following day.

VIEW ALL

“I haven’t been home yet since Saturday. We’re leaving soon but I’m literally going home to like, kip for a few hours and come back in,” said the solicitor via a text message to her sister.

Sharing beds

The following Monday, the directors decided that the team would be operating out of a hotel in the city for a few nights to avoid wasting time with the commute home after each shift. The solicitor assumed this was standard practice based on how Kuksal and Xu described the arrangement.

Upon arrival at the hotel, the solicitor realised that only a single two-bedroom suite had been booked for herself and the two directors. The solicitor was presented with the option of sharing a bed with Ms Xu or instead sleeping on the couch.

According to her evidence, the solicitor was too tired to cause a fuss as it was 1am.

Kuksal required the solicitor to recommence work – she was allegedly not allowed to finish and go to bed until 5:30am. The following day, there was no attempt by the directors to acquire a separate room, with the solicitor telling her sister: “My only really, truly alone time is when I’m in the shower…”

After about a week in the role, the solicitor unsurprisingly reached a breaking point, contacting the firm’s accountant to express her frustration with Kuksal.

“I can’t do this and … I don’t want to work with him. I honestly need to just leave and go home as soon as possible… I’ve had no alone time in three days and I’ve shared a bed with [Xu] for the last two nights. I just want to grab my bag and go,” the solicitor said.

The solicitor had already expressed these feelings to Kuksal, to which he allegedly replied: “emotions are useless and [you] need to ignore them”.

Shortly after, the solicitor experienced panic attacks, requiring four days off from her role, which she received no payment for as she had not accrued enough leave. According to the solicitor, compassionate leave was never considered.

She returned to work earlier than expected at Kuksal’s request, starting at 5pm on a Sunday and working right through to 11.23am on the Monday. These sporadic hours continued upon her return, working a 9:08am to 11.15pm shift in the same week.

‘Bizarre’ movie request

During that week, the solicitor was working from home on a Saturday night when at 1am Kuksal “demanded” the worker watch a movie – allegedly requiring her to watch the full film before coming into the office that day.

The following text exchange commenced at 12.56am – which includes Kuksal reciting a direct quote from the film:

Kuksal: Text me when you finish watching it

Solicitor: The two-hour movie called The Miracle about the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team?

Kuksal: Yes

Kuksal: Watch half at least. You can watch another quarter on your way to work...

Kuksal: Did you watch any of it?

Solicitor: I’m watching it now.

Kuksal: Which scene?

Solicitor: He’s making them do speed races on the ice – endurance training

Kuksal: Gentlemen, you aren’t talented enough to win on talent alone...

Solicitor: I’m at 43:00

Solicitor (at 3.20am): I’ve just finished it. But I’m going to bed now.

The solicitor found this request to be “bizarre” and “incredulous”, as it was in reference to a philosophical point he was trying to make.

The following day, the solicitor sent another message to the accountant: “I just need to vent. I’m an inch close to quitting at this point. I can’t handle much more of this. I am so sick of the insults and the lectures – I honestly feel that he is treating me in a way that is completely unjustified and utterly disproportionate to the rest of the team.”

“I’ve ‘worked’ 110 hours in 8 days. I can’t live like this. Especially not with the verbal abuse and personal insults on top,” said the solicitor.

A phone call ensued shortly after, where the solicitor alleges Kuksal “berated” her, to which the solicitor replied saying she “didn’t want the job anymore”. Kuksal allegedly threatened to sue her for not providing four weeks’ notice and told her to read her contract.

After the call, the solicitor received an email that her employment had been terminated.

Court findings

The Magistrates Court of Victoria found that People Shop failed in a number of circumstances. Firstly, the court recognised that People Shop failed to pay her at all for tenure while simultaneously breaching its record-keeping obligations.

The court labelled People Shop’s “unreasonable hours” contraventions as “particularly egregious”.

“The sheer number of hours [the solicitor] was required to work are, in my view, self-evidently excessive. The times of the day, night and weekends she was required to work were arbitrary and unusual,” the court said.

In terms of the hotel stayover practice that the solicitor was required to take part in, the court argued that it robbed her of “personal autonomy”.

“The requirement that she work excessive hours whilst staying in a hotel room with Kuksal and Xu deprived her of any form of personal autonomy or agency without any rational justification apparent,” the court said.

The movie request was found to be “unreasonable”, especially considering she had already worked a 14-hour day and was required to communicate with Kuksal while watching the movie at 1am.

“Further, in all the circumstances, they made her working environment so repugnant that it constituted a repudiatory breach of contract leading to the end of her employment by way of her acceptance of that breach,” the court said.

Overall, considering the contraventions, the solicitor received a total of $59,410.80 in reimbursement – with the civil penalties pertaining to the failure to pay wages and unreasonable hours contraventions accounting for $48,840.