Underpayment of employees within the franchise sector has again made the headlines following the Federal Court’s decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1290. This case is significant because unlike most cases brought before the courts regarding underpayment, here, the franchisee was held responsible, as well as the Franchisor, and a part owner of the Franchisor entity in their personal capacity.

What Happened?

Since the investigation into 7-Eleven franchises earlier this year, the Fair Work Ombudsman has brought a number of claims against employers who operate a franchised business for underpaying their employees. In most of these cases, only the employer is found liable. However, in this instance, the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced their proceedings against the franchisee, the franchisor, an associated entity of the franchisor and against the part owner of the franchisor entity in their personal capacity (the Respondents).

The Fair Work Ombudsman decided to join all the Respondents rather than just the franchisee based on the close association between the corporate entities and the level of control the part-owner had over the decision-making process for setting wages. In fact, the level of control the part owner wielded over the different companies meant that the part-owner was considered a “de-facto” director. Another contributing factor was the Respondent’s direct knowledge and participation in the decision-making process for setting and making payment of wages meaning that each Respondent was, at some level, culpable and contributed towards underpaying their employees.

Importantly, this was despite the fact that the franchisor, the associated entity and the part-owner had no direct relationship with the franchisee as a shareholder or director. The franchisee was a separate legal entity with its own shareholders and director.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Court held that each of the Respondents was liable for the underpayment and ordered the following:

  1. Penalties equalling $146,000 split between each of the Respondents;
  2. The Respondents paid the Fair Work Ombudsman’s costs;
  3. The Franchisor pay for an audit of every franchisee to make sure they are compliant with their employment law obligations;
  4. Each Respondent (except the Franchisee) undertake training at their own expense on their obligations under employment law.

What Can Franchisors Do?

There are a number of practical solutions that franchisors could implement to minimise the risk of non-compliance by its franchisees. At the National Franchise Convention, Natalie James of Fair Work Ombudsman applauded the practical solutions McDonald’s implemented to ensure compliance with employment law, including:

  1. Franchisee audits;
  2. Establishing an employee hotline; and
  3. State of the art time recording.

Although Ms James admitted that these practical solutions might not apply for all franchises, there are still a number of cost-effective solutions, including:

  1. Incorporating employment law training into the initial and ongoing training programs;
  2. Implementing a formal procedure and policy for dealing with employee complaints internally both at the franchisee and franchisor level; and
  3. Requiring franchisees to submit employee records as well as their usual financial information.

Each of these potential solutions will help lower the risk of franchisees contravening their legal obligations as well as promote a culture of compliance with employment law.

Finally, although the carrot is better than the stick, acting on any contraventions that arise will also show there is a strong commitment by the franchisor and the franchise network to observe compliance with their obligations to employees.

Key Takeaways

This case highlights the potential for franchisors to be held liable for contraventions of employment law that arise from the actions of their franchisees. This case primarily dealt with the issue of determining appropriate penalties to impose on the Respondents and could potentially be distinguished on the clear level of control the franchisor exercised over the franchisee. In addition, the Respondents had also admitted their involvement in the contraventions.

Nevertheless, that the Respondents included the franchisor, an associated entity and a part-owner of the franchisor entity is still significant. It highlights the current sense of expectation being placed on franchisors since the 7-Eleven investigation to exercise greater oversite over its franchisees in relation to the proper payment and treatment of the franchisee’s employees.


Our franchise lawyers and employment lawyers have significant experience in assisting franchisors and franchisees to comply with their legal obligations in all areas of law including employment. If you are unsure about your obligations or would like assistance to minimise the risk of a contravention, get in touch with our franchise team on 1300 544 755.

COVID-19 Business Survey
LegalVision is conducting a survey on the impact of COVID-19 for businesses across Australia. The survey takes 2 minutes to complete and all responses are anonymous. We would appreciate your input. Take the survey now.

About LegalVision: LegalVision is a tech-driven, full-service commercial law firm that uses technology to deliver a faster, better quality and more cost-effective client experience.

The majority of our clients are LVConnect members. By becoming a member, you can stay ahead of legal issues while staying on top of costs. For just $199 per month, membership unlocks unlimited lawyer consultations, faster turnaround times, free legal templates and members-only discounts.

Learn more about LVConnect

Masao Watanabe
Need Legal Help? Get a Free Fixed-Fee Quote

If you would like to receive a free fixed-fee quote or get in touch with our team, fill out the form below.

  • By submitting this form, you agree to receive emails from LegalVision and can unsubscribe at any time. See our full Privacy Policy.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Our Awards
  • 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn
  • 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards
  • 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500
  • 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review
  • 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards
  • Most Innovative Law Firm - 2019 Australasian Lawyer 2019 Most Innovative Firm - Australasian Lawyer
Privacy Policy Snapshot

We collect and store information about you. Let us explain why we do this.

What information do you collect?

We collect a range of data about you, including your contact details, legal issues and data on how you use our website.

How do you collect information?

We collect information over the phone, by email and through our website.

What do you do with this information?

We store and use your information to deliver you better legal services. This mostly involves communicating with you, marketing to you and occasionally sharing your information with our partners.

How do I contact you?

You can always see what data you’ve stored with us.

Questions, comments or complaints? Reach out on 1300 544 755 or email us at info@legalvision.com.au

View Privacy Policy