London, Oct 12 (ANI): A stripper in Britain, who earned 200,000 pounds a year at Stringfellows, is set to expose the way the club exploits its lapdancers.
Nadine Quashie, 28, said she was made to dance naked without pay and had money docked if she breached a series of petty rules imposed by club boss Peter Stringfellow.
She claims that despite being officially self-employed, the club set a limit on what she charged for lapdances and threatened to sack dancers who took cash gifts from punters.
Quashie, who claims she was wrongfully sacked from the Covent Garden club, told a tribunal that dancers were allowed to only take pre-paid vouchers known as "heavenly money".
"We had to wear garters and keep the heavenly money in them. If we were caught with cash it was confiscated," the Sun quoted her as saying.
"The prices were 10 pounds for a topless table dance and 20 pounds for a fully nude dance.I also had to dance on stage. Stage shows were not paid for. We did hosting, where we charge 300 pounds to sit with a customer for an hour," she revealed.
The single mum told the central London hearing she and other girls had to rush to give customers a free nude dance once an hour on the hour, when a special song played.
"We had to give a free dance to a customer every hour as soon as we heard the song Girls, Girls, Girls. If we were found in the changing room at this time we were fined 50 pounds," she said.
She said she was also threatened with fines if she failed to attend meetings with Stringfellow or his deputy even though she had difficulty finding a babysitter.
There were more fines if she breached a strict dress code.
The tribunal heard dancers paid a number of charges, including £15 for styling and make-up, a general fee of 65 pounds and 25 percent of earnings over £300.
Stringfellows' lawyer Caspar Glyn accused Nadine of being "a tax fraudster" and said her case was based on "lots of little lies", and added she chose to work at the club because the rewards were "enormous".
Quashie, of Greenford, West London, claims the rules meant she was not self-employed.
If the tribunal agrees she will begin an unfair dismissal claim based over a drug allegation she denies. (ANI)