Tribunal used new powers to impose written roster guarantees for 1,256 part-timers across three sites
The Fair Work Commission rewrote key terms in three ALDI warehouse agreements, forcing the retailer to guarantee fixed rosters for part-timers.
In a decision handed down January 2 that signals a new willingness to intervene in enterprise bargaining, the Fair Work Commission approved three ALDI warehouse agreements only after imposing its own amendments over the company's strenuous objections.
The tribunal found that part-time workers at ALDI's Prestons, Jandakot and Stapylton distribution centres would not be better off under the proposed deals than under their industry award, despite higher hourly pay. The reason: their hours were too unpredictable to plan a life around.
Deputy President Slevin zeroed in on a roster system that left roughly 1,256 part-time warehouse employees guessing when they would finish work each day and which days they might be called in. Under the agreements ALDI put forward, these workers could be rostered any day of the week and learned their expected finish times only at the start of each shift, with no guarantee those times would hold.
For the Commission, that uncertainty was not something extra pay could smooth over. Workers described missing doctor's appointments, scrambling for childcare and being turned down for loans because banks only counted their contracted hours, not the longer shifts they routinely worked.
Rather than reject the agreements outright, the Commission reached for a power introduced in 2022 reforms that remains lightly tested: the ability to approve a deal that fails the better off overall test by specifying amendments needed to fix it.
The amendment here was surgical but significant. ALDI now must reach written agreement with each affected part-timer on a regular work pattern that locks in days, hours and start and finish times. The company has eight weeks to complete those arrangements across three sites.
ALDI fought the change hard, arguing that flexibility is essential to its just-in-time logistics model and warning that the amendment would fundamentally alter deals employees had already voted to accept. The company pointed to fluctuating demand, last-minute disruptions and the operational headaches it faced when it briefly used fixed rosters during the pandemic.
But workers and their unions told a different story. One former Jandakot warehouse employee, an SDA delegate who worked under similar terms, said finish times shifted constantly and employees felt pressured to stay beyond their notional shift lengths or risk being labelled poor team players. A UWU organiser reported that Stapylton workers were routinely expected to work all their fortnightly hours in one week, then come back for more the following week.
Thirteen of the seventeen employees who responded to the Commission's request for views backed the change, citing the toll of never knowing when they would get home.
The decision broke new ground on another front. The Australian Council of Trade Unions appeared to argue that the Commission's amendment power should be read broadly, while ALDI contended it should operate narrowly, much like the existing undertaking process that requires employer consent.
Deputy President Slevin sided with the broader view, noting that enterprise agreements are statutory instruments, not pure contracts, and that Parliament has equipped the tribunal to intervene when workers risk being left worse off. The ruling stresses that consent is not required, only that the Commission hear from all sides and confine any amendment strictly to addressing the problem at hand.
The three agreements cover 6,483 workers in total. The amendments affect less than a fifth of that number, but the precedent may loom larger. For HR teams, the takeaway is stark: unpredictable hours now weigh heavily in better off overall assessments, and the Commission will rewrite your deal if it has to.
