Resources: Blog

FroYo Master Franchisor Penalised for Involvement in Workplace Law Contraventions


Significant Decision Case Study

This is the first decision in which the FWO has secured penalties against a master franchisor for its involvement in contraventions of the FW Act.


Yogurberry World Square Pty Ltd (Yogurberry World Square) operated a take-away frozen yoghurt and drinks franchise in World Square, Sydney.

Yogurberry World Square was a member of a group of family of companies including a payroll company and the master franchisor company for the Yogurberry brand, YBF Australia Pty Ltd (YBF Australia). Each member of the group of companies was involved in the operation of a business trading under the Yogurberry brand.

In 2013, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) investigated the Yogurberry World Square store, which was at that time operated by YBF Australia. It found that YBF Australia had committed a number of contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and issued the company with a letter of caution and several infringement notices.

Sometime later, Yogurberry World Square (a related company to YBF Australia) took over operation of the Yogurberry World Square store.

In 2014 and 2015, the FWO made efforts to recover records from the Yogurberry companies relating to payment of wages and rosters. The new operator of the Yogurberry World Square store blamed the change in management for its inability to produce records.

The FWO then launched an investigation into the group of companies, including YBF Australia (the master franchisor).

As a result of the investigation, Yogurberry World Square admitted to a range of contraventions of the FW Act including underpaying wages, failing to pay penalties, failing to pay special clothing allowance, failing to keep proper records and failing to issue employees with payslips.

YBF Australia admitted to its involvement in the contraventions, as did the associated payroll company and an individual who was a director or an officer in each of the Yogurberry companies.


Decision of the Federal Court

As the contraventions were admitted by the Respondents, the court was left to decide on the quantum of penalties to be ordered.

In reaching a decision the court had regard to the maximum penalties available, the Respondents’ cooperation with the FWO and the objective seriousness of each contravention.

The court found that since 2013, the Respondents had been on notice of their obligations to comply with workplace laws and had deliberately not kept proper records, thus frustrating the FWO’s investigation into their workplace practices.

Furthermore, no evidence as to the financial position of the Respondents was provided to the court in the proceedings. This led the court to infer that the Respondents were intentionally trying to disguise their respective financial positions in order to prevent an evaluation of how each had profited from contraventions of the FW Act.

The court held that these factors, as well as the vulnerable nature of the employees concerned, increased the need for specific deterrence in this case. The court said that penalties imposed on employers and those involved in contraventions should not form part of “the cost of doing business.”

Ultimately, the court made orders that each Respondent pay a penalty:

  • YBF Australia - $25,000
  • Yogurberry World Square - $75,000
  • CL Group Pty Ltd - $35,000
  • Soon Ok Oh - $11,000
    Total: $146,000

The court also ordered that:

  • YBF Australia and CL Group Pty Ltd conduct an audit to ensure that all employees or persons engaged to perform work under the Yogurberry brand in Australia are paid correctly, issued with payslips and proper records are kept;
  • Ms Oh and the master franchisor, YBF Australia engage a professional to train them and any other director or company secretary in respect to the FW Act, the Fair Work Regulations and the Fast Food Industry Award 2010; and
  • The Respondents pay the FWO’s costs.


Lessons from this decision

This is the first decision in which the FWO has secured penalties against a master franchisor for its involvement in contraventions of the FW Act.

Although the contraventions were admitted, this decision demonstrates that the FWO and the courts are interested in reducing the distance between franchisors and franchisees when it comes to contraventions of the FW Act, particularly in relation to employee entitlements.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


Similar articles

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.


Workplace bullying and reasonable management action

Just Managing

Workplace bullying can be extremely serious and should not be tolerated by employers.


How a region banded together to improve employment standards

Group Effort

No employer operates in a silo – all employers operate in complex systems of interrelated stakeholders including employees, customers, other businesses, and regulators who enforce the laws that apply to the employer and their business.


The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Notice of termination in the employment contract

Put it in writing

When it comes to engaging new employees or promoting existing employees, it is crucial that employers prepare and review contracts of employment to ensure that they accurately reflect the terms which will govern an employee’s employment.


Termination of employment letters

In your letter

A termination of employment letter serves a significant purpose in bringing the employment relationship to an end.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.