If I were paid overtime for it I wouldnlt have made the point. My point is that OP is working as a manager and perhaps the hours in contract were not mean to be taken so literally, as is the case with professional people.

I say with complete certainty that anyone who watched the clock in my business or industry would have a very unsuccessful and short career. Doesn't mean anyone has to buy into it, if they don't want to work like that then they follow another path.

I agree it is pointless to have 37.5 hours written into contract, most of my previous contracts will say "whatever hours are required". This one has a number of hours, whatever, not worth getting into an argument over.

Lots of people have written contracts saying however many hours, as that is what the modern award says is standard hours! So anything over that is overtime. They can't give you lesser conditions than the modern award for that occupation is, so they are pretty much stuck at writing the contract as that many hours.

I would expect a resturant manager to work far more than a normal working week. But I would expect them to be paid at the award rate AT LEAST (including overtime).

I think you are all missing the point with this hours issue.

DIAC states that a 457 role has to have a salary commensurate with working a 38 hour week. This enforces a full time role and stops 457 'job share', part time, etc which is against the whole point of 457.
The Mininum Salary Level (MSL) set by the ATO, in conjunction with DIAC, is the lowest level of taxable salary declared after all non taxable amounts have been discounted (LAFHA, Super, Novated Lease, etc). You can not go below this.
Both of these act as providing a low but safe baseline of employment to 'try' and prevent misuse and abuse of migrant workers.

So, the employer could be doing exactly the right thing 'officially'. I do suspect from the OP's statements however that they may be leveraging off the OP's need to stay and work more than they should be.

The OP's issue is that they feel they are being 'made' to work more than contractually/visa obliged. We have all made various comments about that.

Yes, 'professional' people expect that they will do this, but 'professional' people have, usually, a good salary to offset the extra non overtime payable hours. I have a major issue with the 'professional' term in this context as it implies that, if you disagree with such working practices, then you are not professional and a clock watching socialite of low class only there for the money and should really be sweeping the streets if you can't handle the extra unpaid effort. Guilty as charged m'lud!!
I feel I am extremely professional, have high standards of work effort, never miss timescales, always go the extra mile, etc etc...but...I do speak up if they start to take the p!ss and expect me to work 10-12 hours every day. If the task calls for it I work till its finished, but, then I take time off in lieu. I am not a 'not for profit' employee.
I challenge things continually, not to creat diversions or to just 'have a say', I do it when I think there is a route being taken which is inefficient and can be done better, quicker and with less pain. My pet hate is the 'well, we have always done it this way' line!
Maybe its bizarre to some people, but I actually have a very good reputation in our company for 'getting things done' and, usually, when I have something to say they listen. Not out of fear of shout down or out of 'let him have his say then we can ignore him and carry on'. Real work and real results comes from a democratic team and we are all encouraged to look at areas of innovation and improvement as we go about our daily work. The key to this of course is , right place, right time!! Pick your battles carefully and never , ever, for the love of god, upset the cleaner!!!

Nope, I am not missing the point about the hours.
I was actually a union rep before leaving the UK, so I can definatly see both sides. But a resturant manager is not a 9-5 type job. There are going to be times when you have to work more hours. The main thing is if the OP is being PAID correctly for those hours.
In the end, if the company is a bad company, they are a bad company, and the only thing which will chnage the situation is to find a better job.

Exactly right BS. That's why it's unfair to compare your situation with that of the OPs. While you have the choice of bailing out if you are unhappy, the OP's situation is not quite as simple.

Ok, how about another option. This is what i would do. I would be a sweet as pie to your boss. I would not only work the hours he requests, but work more. In the mean time i would ask him to sponsor you through PR as soon as you qualify. You can sell this to him under the fact that company sponsored PR requires you to stay with the employer for 2 years.

As soon as granted i would then say you are only working 37 hours a week. If he doesnt like it he can make you redundant.

Under the rules you would be permitted to stay on PR.

LOL, I like verystormy's style.

Well you have actually missed my point, I was not talking about walking away from a particular job or commenting on visa status. I was talking about expectations of professional people in a far more general manner no matter where they are in the world. And in my 18 year working life, professional people are expected to work whatever hours are required to do the job, they are task based not time based.

Further I did not "compare" my situation to the OPs, in my first post I merely suggested that the employer might view the role in the sense that I described and thus might be quite amazed to find the employee is questioning a few extra hours.

In which case you've missed the point of the whole thread, as it is about Australian visa status and worker exploitation and not about professional expectation on a more general level.

Regarding your second point. In your second post you did make the comparison.

Wow you still don't get me.

Again, I was merely being devil's advocate and *suggesting* that perhaps the employer did not see it as exploitation but had a genuine expectation that staff in this particular position may have to work more hours than contracted. I have mentioned what happens in my profession to demonstrate that this can happen in some occupations, not to compare..

That is all, just offering something for OP to consider and rule out if appropriate. I have at no point said that this is definitely the situation and OP needs to suck it up. No need to start a row with me about it.

I do get you, and I'm not trying to start a row with you about it, but accept that I have an opinion on what you have written.

Your previous points may have implied a comparison with your situation and his, and that's what I didn't agree with because it would be unfair to to this. You have now cleared this up by saying that your intention was not to compare.

Yes you have missed the point that I was offering completely.

I am not challenging the validity of the hours worked or the routines of that profession. I was stating the requirement for the 457 Visa with hours and salary. By doing that I was giving the OP a baseline from which they could enter into discussions with their employer about the hours worked per week. DIAC specifically states that the salary agreed as part of the 457 Visa sponsorship approval is that for a full time role of 38 hrs per week.

Your point about the type of company I am in total agreement with. My route would be to continue working for current Visa sponsor whilst searching for a new potential sponsor. Can be tricky but as long as the OP does their curent role correctly then the employer can have no arguments.