Resources: Blogs

Once upon a trolley...


The cautionary tale of trolley collectors and supermarket supply chains

The plight of trolley collectors has been a focus of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for many years, and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission before that. In 2011, the FWO shifted its focus to the end users of the trolley collecting supply chain – big supermarkets.

The plight of trolley collectors has been a focus of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for many years, and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission before that.

In 2011, the FWO shifted its focus to the end users of the trolley collecting supply chain – big supermarkets. The FWO raised its supply chain concerns with Coles noting that Coles’ trolley collection contractor engaged its own subcontractors who, in turn, employed the trolley collectors. This meant that Coles was significantly removed from the employment practices of the subcontractors and the employment conditions of their employees.

A number of the subcontractors in the supply chain were subsequently found to have been significantly underpaying their employees. The FWO named Coles in a number of proceedings against the subcontractors, claiming that Coles was involved in the underpayments. Coles argued that its contractor was responsible for providing the trolley collecting services and for ensuring that subcontractors were complying with workplace laws. However, in an effort to make good, Coles agreed to enter into an enforceable undertaking with the FWO, which commenced in 2014.

An enforceable undertaking with the FWO is essentially a set of promises that an employer or business makes to take certain corrective actions and do particular things in the future to promote compliance with workplace laws. If a business fails to comply with the terms of an enforceable undertaking, the FWO can take legal action against the business.

As part of its enforceable undertaking, Coles committed to a range of actions, including bringing trolley collecting in-house, making payments to the underpaid trolley collectors employed by subcontractor (to the tune of $220,000) and reporting annually to the FWO on future underpayment claims.

Coles recently completed its second annual report under the enforceable undertaking. The report showed that 85% of Coles’ sites now engage trolley collectors directly employed by Coles and trolley collector underpayment claims have decreased.

Whilst the FWO has commended Coles for its efforts to stamp out exploitation in the trolley collecting industry, Coles still has more to do as the enforceable undertaking, and the ongoing actions required under it, will continue until 31 December 2018.

There are two important lessons to take away from the example set by Coles. The first is the value of enforceable undertakings in correcting missteps and avoiding prosecution by the FWO. If a FWO audit shows that a business has made mistakes in its employment practices, working cooperatively with the FWO can avoid litigation and can help to right any wrongs.

The second lesson is about the importance of carefully examining your business’ supply chain. Coles captured the FWO’s attention because its contracting processes failed to detect the potential for worker exploitation. Businesses should ensure that any contractor they work with complies with their obligations under workplaces laws and in turn, requires that their subcontractors do the same. If in doubt, look at keeping things in-house where you can control the payroll.


Similar articles

FWO secures penalties against bar operator and external accounting firm

Closing time

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires employers to keep certain employee records for a period of 7 years. These records are necessary to ensure that employees have been paid their minimum entitlements should an underpayment claim be made.


Underpaying employer ordered to pay $475,200 in penalties

Pecuniary penalties no longer a matter of degrees

The Federal Court of Australia has issued one of its first penalty decisions since the High Court of Australia’s decision earlier this year of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2022] HCA 13.


Commission applies test confirmed by High Court in distinguishing between employee and contractor

Sham slam

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission has applied the test recently confirmed by the High Court of Australia in CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2, in distinguishing between employees and contractors.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


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.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.