SDA TAKES MCDONALD’S FRANCHISE TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR SUBSTITUTING PAID BREAKS FOR FREE SOFT DRINKS.
May 31, 2021
SDA Union.
The South Australian Branch of the SDA – the union for fast food workers – has lodged a landmark case against a third South Australian McDonald’s Franchisee in the Federal Court.

On behalf of 25 current and former McDonald’s workers, the SDA is alleging that IA & DM Robson Pty Ltd deliberately denied workers paid rest and drink breaks. IA & DM Robson Pty Ltd operate the Arndale, Croydon, Fulham Gardens, Port Adelaide, Harbour Town, West Lakes and Woodville restaurants.

As part of this, the SDA will also be alleging that workers were told they could receive a free soft drink in lieu of a paid 10-minute rest break.

The SDA is seeking thousands of dollars in compensation for workers who did not get the breaks they were legally entitled to and asking the Court to award penalties against the McDonald’s franchisee for breaching the McDonald’s Agreement and the Fast Food Award.

This action is in addition to two current filings in the Federal Court regarding the lack of paid breaks.

The original claim against Olle G & J Pty Ltd has increased from 14 claimants in the original filing to 61. In the recent action filed against Delbridge Investments Pty Ltd, the claimants have increased from 55 to 180.

These actions are in addition to the adverse action claim on behalf of 22 workers at McDonald’s Murray Bridge against Delbridge Investments Pty Ltd regarding physical, verbal and psychological abuse by management.

These actions are the tip of the iceberg. The SDA has collected hundreds of formal statements regarding workers’ concerns in McDonalds and thousands of past and present McDonald’s crew members have reached out to discuss concerns about their time at McDonalds.

Quotes attributable to SDA SA Secretary Josh Peak

“It should not have to keep coming to this.” 
“The SDA has now lodged Federal Court action against three franchises, on behalf of 266 workers, across 15 restaurants just to ensure thousands of workers can get their basic entitlements.”
“It’s clear that the denial of rest breaks has been deliberate, systematic and widespread across McDonald’s restaurants.”
“It’s disheartening to think that teenagers across Australia have been deliberately misled and taken advantage of by McDonald’s.”
“McDonald’s can’t pick and choose which entitlements they choose to give workers and swap them out for freebies.”
“A free soft drink is not a substitute for a paid rest break nor is a Big Mac is not a substitute for a pay rise.”
“McDonald’s can’t continue to cut corners when it comes to their employees’ rights.”

Quotes from Joshua Kaye, 22, worked at McDonald’s West Lakes from 2014-2021

“I worked at McDonald’s for 7 years. For 6 years, I never received a paid rest break.”
“It was only when the SDA stepped in that things changed.”
“Talking about our break entitlements was generally a taboo topic at work, so we avoided bringing it up with managers.”
“Whenever I asked managers about paid rest breaks, they told me that we didn’t get those because we got a free drink instead.”
Quotes from Brock Hedges, 25, worked at McDonald’s Fulham Gardens from 2014-2017 “In my 3 years at McDonald’s, I never received a paid rest break.”
“I was never told about rest breaks by my manager and only became aware that they existed in my last year at Maccas.” “When I asked my manager if I could take my rest break, they told me I wasn’t entitled to them. “I even had to attend a disciplinary meeting with my store manager because I asked about these entitlements. I felt like I couldn’t speak up about this issue or any issues at work.”

People have a right to belong to a union.   

Neferti wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 7:22am:


Yeee-usssh - but the non-members line up for the benefits - including any compensation for this one.

Kinda not a good look, eh?

BTW - nobody forces anyone to belong to a Union - plenty of Union members are victimised by modern day wannabe robber baron bosses.

(reverts)  Yes - the good old Aussie bloke would rather go quietly into the darkness than be labeled a whinger or a commo or somehow incapable of making his own way through life on his own two feet etc.... (snores) .....

Neferti wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 7:22am:


Bring back 'No ticket - no start'.

Won't join a union? No?

Fine - we don't have a job for you.

Next, please!

Restaurant operators fined $334,000 after paying employees with pizza and soft drink 
10 June 2014
Fair Work Ombudsman
The operators of two Melbourne restaurants who gave teenage employees pizza and soft drink instead of their correct wages have been fined a total of $334,818 following an investigation and litigation by the Fair Work Ombudsman. 

“Such a practice belongs in the dark ages,” Judge John O’Sullivan says in his decision handed down in the Federal Circuit Court.

The Fair Work Ombudsman found that 111 mostly teenage employees – one as young as 13 - had been underpaid a total of $258,000 between 2009 and 2012 when they worked at  La Porchetta franchise outlets at Pakenham and Berwick.   

The companies which operate the restaurants - Bound for Glory Enterprises Pty Ltd and Zillion Zenith International Pty Ltd - have each been fined $139,507.50.

Tecoma man Ruby Chand, the owner of both franchises, has been penalised a further $55,803.

Judge O’Sullivan also ordered the two companies to back-pay more than $79,000 in outstanding entitlements to those employees not yet fully reimbursed.

Judge O’Sullivan pointed to a need to specifically deter Chand and his companies from further workplace breaches.

“The contraventions themselves and the conduct of the respondents fundamentally hamstrung the ability to confirm the affected employees’ entitlements during the investigation, the co-operation was less than forthcoming,” Judge O’Sullivan said.

“In that sense I am not convinced the respondents are genuinely remorseful.”

Judge O’Sullivan noted that Chand’s companies had previously been required – in 2007, 2008 and 2009 – to back-pay underpaid employees and were warned by Fair Work inspectors of the need to pay employees their full lawful entitlements.

Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James says the Court’s decision to impose such high penalties sends a strong message to others that exploitation of young and vulnerable workers simply won’t be tolerated.

The Fair Work Ombudsman began investigating the La Porchetta franchises after receiving a single complaint from a parent of one young staff member.

It subsequently found that 59 employees at Pakenham had been underpaid a total of $130,195 and 52 employees at Berwick had been short-changed $127,824.

The Court heard that Chand had claimed the employees were given half-priced pizza and soft drink, which was being ‘offset’ against their wages and entitlements.   

The underpayments were also caused by employees being paid flat hourly rates that were below the minimum they were entitled to, apprentices and trainees not being paid for the minimum number of hours they were employed to work and underpayment of leave entitlements.

Underpayment of individual employees ranged from $3 to $25,358. There were also serious record-keeping contraventions.

The employees, part-time and casuals, were employed as cooks, kitchen attendants and food and beverage service employees. A number were engaged under training programs which enabled Chand’s companies to claim more than $45,000 in Commonwealth benefits.

Delivering his judgment last Friday, Judge O’Sullivan observed that the nature and extent of the breaches “warrants severe sanction by way of penalty”. “I am satisfied that the conduct engaged in by the respondents was part of a systematic business practice,” he said.

“In the situation where the respondents were receiving subsidies or benefits for engaging apprentices and trainees and have admitted still not making sure that those same employees received their minimum entitlements, the irresistible inference was the conduct engaged in was part of a deliberate course of conduct by the respondents as to how the business (if it could be called that) was run.”

The Court dismissed the respondents’ submission that many of the individual underpayments were relatively small. It found that “the amounts involved may seem trifling to some but they were required to be paid to young employees for whom they were far from trifling and for which they’ve had to wait”.

Judge O’Sullivan also described the record-keeping contraventions as “fundamental and flagrant”. “Ensuring compliance with minimum standards is an important consideration in this case,” he said.

“One of the principal objects of the Fair Work Act is the maintenance of an effective safety net of employer obligations, and effective enforcement mechanisms. The failure to keep records by the respondents, which is admitted, arguably undermines and frustrates the attainment of that objective.”

Judge O’Sullivan also found there was a need for general deterrence, saying the conduct “falls towards the higher end of the scale of offending conduct and undermines both the objects and enforcement of the legislation involved.”

“Where the conduct involved represents such a fundamental breach of the safety net payments that are at the heart of the objects of the Fair Work Act and where the respondents are still operating, any penalty arrived at must send a clear and unambiguous message to the respondents by way of penalty to deter the possibility they will repeat the breaches,” Judge O’Sullivan said.

Quote:




i