He was employed by a franchisee, not the chain itself - so he went after head office instead
The Federal Court has found Domino's engaged in misleading conduct over the pay rates its franchisees applied to their staff.
The decision, handed down on July 22, 2026, is one for HR and payroll leaders to note, because of who it targets. The workers were employed by individual franchise operators, not by the Domino's parent company. But the case was brought against the franchisor.
It began with a former casual delivery driver who worked at a store at North Caboolture, Queensland, between October 2015 and March 2018. He was employed by two successive franchise operators. Rather than sue those operators, he brought a class action against Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited, on behalf of delivery drivers and in-store workers employed across the franchise network between June 24, 2013 and January 23, 2018.
His central argument was about how Domino's ran its network. Through disclosure documents, workplace training, pay-rate notices, centralised payroll and bookkeeping systems, and its own compliance and audit work, he said, the company represented that certified enterprise agreement rates were the lawful minimum for franchisees to pay. The Court found that, in fact, the Fast Food Industry Award applied to the applicant and a substantial group of workers, and that it provided for higher entitlements.
He did not run the claim under the Fair Work Act. He used the misleading-or-deceptive-conduct provision of the Australian Consumer Law - section 18. The Court described the proceeding as "novel," though it added that the appearance of novelty faded once the mechanism was understood.
The Court found Domino's engaged in the conduct, that the conduct occurred "in trade or commerce," and that it conveyed representations of fact about which pay rates applied. It also found a key clause in the relevant 2005 enterprise agreement was invalid to the extent it was inconsistent with the governing statute, so the Award - not the agreement - applied to the applicant and a substantial cohort of workers. On that basis, the Court held the conduct was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18.
Not every part of the applicant's case succeeded. On an alternative way of putting it - that Domino's had merely expressed an opinion about the applicable rates - the Court found the applicant did not establish that Domino's lacked reasonable grounds for that opinion. His separate loss-of-opportunity claim also failed.
The point of most interest to HR sits in the Court's answer to one of Domino's key defences. Domino's argued the Fair Work Act was the only avenue for recovering unpaid award entitlements. The Court disagreed, holding the Act "is not an exclusive code" and that it was open to the applicant to bring the claim under consumer law. The Court also rejected Domino's argument that the workers had suffered no loss because they still held rights to sue their employers under the Fair Work Act.
The Court found the applicant established causation for his individual claim. It accepted that his two employers had been misled by Domino's about the applicable wage rates, and that he was paid less than he otherwise would have been.
On the numbers, the Court assessed the applicant's underpayment loss at $11,869.33, plus interest still to be calculated. That figure covered items including casual loading, weekend and public holiday penalties, and uniform, laundry and delivery allowances.
The decision is not the end of the matter. The trial dealt with liability and the applicant's individual claim; the causation and loss questions for other group members were deferred to a later hearing. Final orders, the precise amount payable and the interest are still to be settled by the parties, and the Court indicated it was likely to refer the balance of the proceeding to mediation. The Court also noted the case was likely to be appealed.
For HR teams in franchise or head-office-led structures, the signal is about reach rather than the sum involved. The ruling suggests that where a parent company's systems and guidance direct - rather than merely inform - the pay decisions of the businesses that employ workers, that company may face exposure under consumer law, separate from the Fair Work regime. As a first-instance decision subject to appeal, its ultimate authority is not yet settled.
