Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An employee of Dentons Australia agreed to a furlough during a strict pandemic lockdown but has since claimed the major law firm owes him almost $50,000 in unpaid wages and entitlements.
A boardroom concierge employed by Dentons Australia during some of NSW’s strictest lockdowns has taken the firm to small claims proceedings and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) over $41,442 in wages and over $7,500 in entitlements.
The small claims proceedings found the concierge accepted a furlough agreement between 1 May 2020 and 10 January 2021, during which he remained employed but was unpaid.
The concierge was unable to establish underpayment entitled under either the Legal Services Award 2020 or the Clerks Private Sector Award 2020, and this first application was dismissed.
Dentons had argued the concierge agreed to the furlough, which had been offered as an alternative to redundancy. Further, it argued he was paid “more than the amount payable under either award raised”.
In de novo review proceedings, the concierge said his conduct – such as silence, requests for clarification, and requests for letters for his estate agent – did not amount to a clear acceptance, as found in the original proceedings. He relied on his requests for clarification and later furlough communications as evidence of non-acceptance.
The concierge also challenged the weight given to evidence by one of Dentons’ senior staff and alleged inconsistencies in material.
However, Judge Douglas Humphreys was not satisfied that there was a breach of the concierge’s employment contract.
In coming to this decision, Judge Humphreys noted a communication from Dentons that read: “In the absence of a selection by you by the close of business on Thursday, 23 April 2020, we will presume you have accepted the final proposal.”
Documentation was also sent to the concierge regarding an extension of the furlough on two occasions, and there was “nothing to indicate the applicant clearly rejected the extension proposals”. Further, he responded once with: “It’s all good. Thank you.”
“The applicant’s complaint that the variation was not in writing fails to address the documentation indicating that the applicant was at all times able to reject the proposal,” Judge Humphreys said.
“His acceptance was occasioned by his silence, and such was specifically contemplated in the correspondence sent to the applicant.”
Citation: Olimpio v Dentons Australia [2026] FedCFamC2G 1444.
