Resources: Blogs

Once upon a trolley...

Blogs
|

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

ICYMI: FWO’s Payroll Remediation Program guide

Employers have obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to pay employees their minimum entitlements for work performed.

Read more...

‘Loosening the reins’ in modern workplaces does not define the employment relationship

Remote control

Employers should be mindful of the risks of mischaracterising a worker when engaging them to perform work.

Read more...

$15.3 million in penalties imposed on sushi restaurants and director for serious contraventions

Put your records on

The director and Chief Executive Officer of a group of four sushi restaurants which operated in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was recently ordered to pay $1.6 million for her involvement in contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more...

High Court rules on scope of inquiry of redeployment within an employers enterprise

That’s not how this works

In “Where does it end?” we looked at the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2024] FCAFC 45. In that decision, the Full Federal Court refused an application from an employer seeking orders to quash previous decisions and compel the Fair Work Commission from further dealing with unfair dismissal applications lodged by employees who had been made redundant.

Read more...

Mad Mex franchisee to pay $305,000 in damages for sexual harassment claim

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) protects employees from sexual harassment, and as part of the Respect@Work amendments now prohibits sex-based harassment.

Read more...

FWC rejects constructive dismissal claim, finding the employment ended by “mutual agreement”

Mutually beneficial

For an employee to have access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the employee was “dismissed” from their employment within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

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 law and sports law.

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

Subscribe

* indicates required