Application by Australian Industry Group, The (163V) - [2020] FWCFB 2316

1

Fair Work Act 2009
s.157—Variation of a modern award to achieve the modern awards objective

Application by Australian Industry Group
(AM2020/20)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON
COMMISSIONER LEE MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2020

Application to vary the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 to achieve the modern awards 
objective 

1. Background

[1] This Decision concerns an application to vary the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 
(MA000003) (the Fast Food Award) filed by the Ai Group on Friday 1 May 2020 (the 
Application).

[2] Ai Group, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (the SDA) and 
the Australian Council of Trade Unions (the ACTU) have been in discussions directed at 
reaching a consent position on changes to the Fast Food Award to mitigate the impact of
COVID-19 on employees and employers covered by the award. The Application was the 
product of those discussions.

[3] The Application seeks to insert a new Schedule – Schedule H – into the Fast Food 
Award. Schedule H provides for:

 a temporary and alternate scheme for part time employment;

 clause H.8 provides that, in certain circumstances an employer may request that an 
employee take paid annual leave. The employee is obliged to consider and not 
unreasonably refuse the request; and

 subject to a series of safeguards clause H.9 enables an employee to require an 
employee to take annual leave as part of a close down of its operations or part of its 
operations.

[2020] FWCFB 2316

DECISION


E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission




 



[2020] FWCFB 2316

2

[4] On 3 May 2020, we issued a statement (the May Statement)1 setting out the 
background to the application and expressed a provisional view that ‘taking into account the 
relevant s 134 considerations … the variation of the Fast Food Award as proposed in the 
Application is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective’.2

[5] In the May Statement we invited any interested party to file a written submission 
supporting or opposing the Application and the provisional view set out at paragraph [19] by 
12 noon on Tuesday 5 May 2020.

[6] On 5 May 2020, Ai Group lodged an amended draft variation, incorporating a minor 
drafting change to clause H.9.3.

[7] As the Application was opposed (by the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union 
(RAFFWU)) the matter was the subject of a hearing on Tuesday 5 May 2020. The transcript 
of the hearing is available here. At the end of the hearing we indicated that, on the material 
before us at that time, we were not persuaded to grant the variation sought by Ai Group.3 We 
also said we were prepared to give Ai Group the opportunity to file evidentiary material 
directed at two matters:

 the impact of the measures that have been put in place in response to the COVID-19 
pandemic on businesses that would be affected by the Application; and

 how the measures that are being proposed will assist in meeting what is said to be 
the parties' shared objective of retaining as many people in employment as possible, 
or in connection with their employment as possible during this period.4

[8] At around 4:30pm on Thursday, 7 May 2020 Ai Group advised it would be in a 
position to file evidentiary material in support of the Application by 5pm Tuesday, 12 May 
2020. 

[9] On 8 May 2020 we issued the following directions:5

1. The Applicants or any party supporting the application is to file submissions and 
evidentiary material including witness statements, by 5pm Tuesday, 12 May 2020. 

2. Any party opposing the application is to file submissions and evidentiary material 
by 5pm Wednesday, 13 May 2020. 

3.Parties wishing to cross-examine any witness are to advise 
chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au by 12pm Thursday, 14 May 2020. 

                                               
1 [2020] FWCFB 2301.
2 Ibid at [19].
3 Transcript, 5 May 2020 at PN173.
4 Transcript, 5 May 2020 at PN173.
5 [2020] FWCFB 2428.






mailto:chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/050520-am202020.htm


[2020] FWCFB 2316

3

4. This matter will be listed for hearing at 9am Friday, 15 May 2020. 

5. Parties are to provide contact details for the hearing and those of any witnesses 
required for cross-examination to chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au by 4pm Thursday, 14 
May 2020.

6. All submissions and evidence are to be sent in word format to 
chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au.

[10] RAFFWU filed an objection to the directions on 8 May 2020, in the following terms:

‘We note the applicant has been granted 7 days to file its materials in support of its 
application. 

Those opposing have been granted 24 hours to reply to that material. 

The applicant has been granted 40 hours prior to hearing after receipt of the materials of 
opposers. 

The nature of the application makes it very difficult to identify the foundation of the case of 
the applicant. The Full Bench stated on transcript:

We are prepared to give you an opportunity to file some evidentiary material going to 
two issues from the perspective of your clients, those that are award reliant, that is, the 
impact of the measures that have been put in place in response to the Covid-19 
pandemic on their business and perhaps more importantly, how the measures that are 
being proposed will assist in meeting what is said to be the parties' shared objective of 
retaining as many people in employment as possible, or in connection with their 
employment as possible during this period. 

Without this material it is difficult to comprehend how an opposer may respond to the 
proposed variation. 

We submit 24 hours to respond to the material of the applicant is manifestly insufficient. We 
note the 7 days which the applicant has had not to mention the weeks before filing its original 
application. We submit the shortest period for opposers should be at least 7 days. We ask that 
this be brought to the attention of the Full Bench.’

[11] In response to RAFFWU’s correspondence we issued the following revised directions:

1. The Applicants or any party supporting the application is to file submissions and 
evidentiary material including witness statements, by 5pm Tuesday, 12 May 2020. 

2. Any party opposing the application is to file submissions and evidentiary material 
by 5pm Thursday, 14 May 2020. 








[2020] FWCFB 2316

4

3. Parties wishing to cross-examine any witness are to advise 
chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au by 10am Friday, 15 May 2020. 

4. This matter will be listed for hearing at 2pm Friday, 15 May 2020. 

5. Parties are to provide contact details for the hearing and those of any witnesses 
required for cross-examination to chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au by 4pm Thursday, 14 
May 2020. 

6. All submissions and evidence are to be sent in word format to 
chambers.ross.j@fwc.gov.au. 

[12] The revised directions provided those opposing the Application (i.e. RAFFWU) an 
additional 24 hours in which to file submissions and evidentiary material. The hearing was 
also moved, from 9am to 2pm on Friday 15 May 2020.

[13] There is no doubt that the Commission is bound to ‘act judicially’, which includes an 
obligation to afford parties procedural fairness. But the application and content of the doctrine 
of procedural fairness is determined by the context. As Mason J observed in Kioa v West:

‘What is appropriate in terms of natural justice depends on the circumstances of the case and 
they will include, inter alia, the nature of the inquiry, the subject matter, and the rules under 
which the decision - maker is acting.’6

[14] The following general observation of Buchanan J (with whom Marshall and Cowdrey 
JJ agreed) in Coal Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler and Others, is also apposite:

‘...it is an important aspect of the work of [the Commission]...that it is to proceed without 
unnecessary technicality and as informally as the circumstances of the case permit...It is not 
inappropriate to say that the members of [the Commission] have a statutory mandate to get to 
the heart of matters as directly and effectively as possible.’7

[15] Relevantly, s.577(a) and (b) provide that the Commission must perform its functions 
and exercise its powers in a manner that:

 is fair and just; and

 is quick, informal, and avoids unnecessary technicalities.

[16] The key contextual considerations in the matter before us are:

 the statutory framework;
 the support of key interested parties (the SDA and ACTU); and

                                               
6 (1985) 159 CLR 550 at [32]; see [2015] FWCFB 210.
7 [(2011) 192 FCR 78 at [25].






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2015fwcfb210.htm#P449_70245


[2020] FWCFB 2316

5

 the need for expedition in order to respond quickly to mitigate the adverse 
consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on employers and employees covered by 
the Fast Food Award.

[17] A Statement in relation to the Application was published on the Commission’s website 
and sent to all subscribers on 3 May 2020. Any interested party was provided with an 
opportunity to respond to the Application and to participate in the hearings on 5 and 15 May 
2020. In these circumstances we are satisfied that we have met our obligation to afford 
procedural fairness to those affected by the Application. In particular, RAFFWU has been 
provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Application and the evidence filed 
by Ai Group.

[18] Submissions have been filed by:

 Ai Group (Attachment B to the Application of 1 May 2020, 12 May 2020, 15 May 
2020 and 15 May (Additional document));

 National Retail Association (NRA) (4 May 2020);

 RAFFWU (5 May 2020 and 14 May 2020);

 SDA (6 May 2020, 14 May 2020 and 15 May 2020); and

 The Hon Christian Porter MP, Commonwealth Minister for Industrial Relations (the 
Minister) (12 May 2020).

[19] A further hearing took place at 2pm on Friday, 15 May 2020. The transcript of that 
hearing is available here. 

[20] Ai Group filed a witness statement by Mr Cameron Newlands.8 Mr Newlands is 
employed by McDonald’s Australia Limited (McDonald’s) in the role of Market Director –
NSW and ACT. Mr Newlands was not required for cross-examination and we deal with his 
evidence later.

[21] RAFFWU filed a witness statement9 by Mr Joshua Cullinan, secretary of RAFFWU. 
Mr Cullinan was not required for cross-examination and we deal with his evidence later. It is 
convenient to note here that while Ai Group did not object to the admission of Mr Cullinan’s 
statement it submitted that certain aspects of his evidence should be given little, if any, 
weight. Ai Group filed a table10 in which it identified certain paragraphs and sentences of Mr 
Cullinan’s statement which it characterised (variously) as hearsay, opinion or a submission, 
and on that basis submitted that the relevant sentence or paragraph ‘should be attributed little 
if any weight’.11

                                               
8 Exhibit AIG1.
9 Exhibit RAFFWU1.
10 Ai Group submission – further – additional document, 15 May 2020.
11 Transcript 15 May 2020 at PN44 – PN46.






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/20200515_am202020.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-mir-120520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-sda-140520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-sda-140520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-sda-050520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-raffwu-140520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-raffwu-050520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-nra-040520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-further-aig-150520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-aig-150520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-aig-150520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-sub-aig-120520.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202020-application-aig-010520.pdf


[2020] FWCFB 2316

6

[22] Counsel for RAFFWU did not advance any submissions in respect of the table filed by 
Ai Group or Ai Group’s characterisation of various parts of Mr Cullinan’s evidence. In these 
circumstances we accept Ai Group’s characterisation as set out in the table filed and will 
accord little weight to the sentences and paragraphs identified.

2. COVID-19 Pandemic

[23] The Application arises from the unique set of circumstances pertaining to the COVID-
19 pandemic. The Commission has published an Information Note about measures taken in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be accessed here. The Information Note was 
most recently updated on 12 May 2020.

[24] Relevantly, for present purposes:

 Since midday on 23 March 2020, restrictions on operations were placed on, 
relevantly, restaurants and cafes. 

 Further measures were announced on 24 March 2020 which applied from midnight 
on 25 March 2020. In particular, restrictions were placed on the opening of food 
courts (takeaway or home delivery remained operational).

 Since 29 March 2020, the Federal Government has advised people to stay at home 
unless partaking in a very limited range of activities:

- Shopping for what is needed – food and other essential supplies;

- Medical or health care needs, including compassionate requirements;

- Exercise in compliance with the public gathering requirement; and

- Work and study, if it cannot be done remotely.

 Since 29 March 2020 the Federal Government has also imposed a limitation on the 
number of persons that can gather together. The general requirement is not more 
than two persons, with the exception of people of the same household and family 
units. In recent days, some of these restrictions have been eased slightly in certain 
states. For example, in New South Wales, from 1 May 2020, two adults may visit 
another household.

[25] On 8 May 2020, the Commonwealth Government announced a 3-step plan, called the 
Roadmap to a COVIDSafe Australia for the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. The Minister’s 
submission notes that under that framework, and in relation to cafés, restaurants and food 
courts, provides as follows: 

(a) Step One - cafes and restaurants will be able to seat up to 10 patrons at a time but 
will need to maintain an average density of 4m2 per person. Food courts will remain 
closed, and restrictions on local and regional travel may be lifted. 






https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/covid-safe-australia-roadmap.pdf
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/update-coronavirus-measures-08may20
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/resources/covid-19-information/information-note-government-responses-2020-05-13.pdf


[2020] FWCFB 2316

7

(b) Step Two - cafes and restaurants will be able to seat up to 20 patrons at a time but 
will need to maintain an average density of 4m2 per person. Food courts will remain 
closed to seated patrons. Caravan parks or camping grounds will be able to open and 
restrictions on some interstate travel may be lifted. 

(c) Step Three – cafes, restaurants and food courts will be able to seat up to 100 
patrons at a time but may need to maintain an average density of 4m2 per person. 
Arrangements under step three will be the ‘new normal’ while the virus remains a 
threat. Restrictions on all interstate travel may be relaxed. International travel and 
mass gatherings over 100 people will remain restricted. 

[26] Ai Group’s submission of 12 May identifies the relevant announcements made to the 
date of its submission, as follows:

(a) Though some restrictions have been eased in Victoria, no changes concernin
the operation of restaurants and cafes have been announced. 

(b) From 15 May 2020, cafes and restaurants in NSW may resume dining-in 
services and seat up to 10 patrons.

(c) From 18 May 2020, cafes and restaurants in Western Australia may resume 
dining-in services and seat up to 20 patrons. 

[27] In relation to these changes Ai Group submits:

‘The changes announced so far are incremental. They will not enable fast food outlets to return 
to ‘business as usual’. They must also be understood in the context of Governments continuing 
to limit the number of persons that may gather together, encouraging persons to practice social 
distancing and the ongoing risk of community transmission of the virus. These factors 
collectively will, in our submission, continue to impact customer demand for the products and 
services offered by employers in the fast food industry. The recently announced changes will 
not restore customer demand or patterns of trade to pre-pandemic levels.’12

[28] We accept Ai Group’s characterisation of the changes announced so far, as 
‘incremental’. We also accept that they will not enable fast food outlets to return to business 
as usual.

[29] In his statement Mr Newlands deals with the recent easing of COVID-19 restrictions 
and notes that McDonald’s is currently reviewing what changes will be made to its operations 
in NSW and ACT as a consequence of recent announcements regarding the lifting of some 
restrictions relating to the operation of restaurants and cafes. At [17] – [20] Mr Newlands’ 
evidence is:

‘A typical McDonald’s restaurant would seat considerably more than 10 customers at one 
time. In some McDonalds’ restaurants, 10 seats would constitute as little as 10% of its total 
seating capacity.

                                               
12 Ai Group submission 12 May at para [15].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

8

Though the dining areas of many McDonalds’ restaurants may be partially reopened in light of 
the easing of restrictions, I do not anticipate that this will result in an increase in the need for 
employees beyond what is currently required. This is in part because the level of customer 
demand in light of the eased restrictions remains unpredictable. In any event, I do not expect 
that the eased restrictions will result in customer demand that matches pre-pandemic volumes
or peaks in the foreseeable future. 

In addition, the volume of work associated with, for instance, cleaning tables after customers 
leave, will not be sufficient to justify rostering any additional employees to those currently 
rostered to work.  Existing employees would absorb these tasks.

There are various operational challenges that accompany reopening in a way that complies 
with the most recent government announcements. This includes monitoring the number of 
people that have entered and are seated in the restaurant. If these issues or difficulties 
outweigh the benefit of reopening a dining area (or are too difficult to manage appropriately) 
we may need to review any decision to reopen the area.13

[30] The Commission has made a number of decisions to insert short term measures to 
provide additional flexibilities to address the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[31] The Commission has granted consent applications to vary the:

 Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010;14

 Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010;15

 Restaurant Industry Award 2010;16 and
 Educational Services (Schools) General Staff Award 2010.17

[32] In addition, we recently determined a contested application to vary the Vehicle 
Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 (Vehicle Award).18

[33] Further, on 8 April 2020 a Full Bench of the Commission issued a decision19 (the 
April 2020 Decision) to vary 99 modern awards to insert a new Schedule – ‘Schedule X: 
Additional measures during the COVID-19 pandemic’. Schedule X provides an entitlement to 
unpaid ‘pandemic leave’ and the flexibility to take twice as much annual leave at half pay. 
The following documents informed the Commission’s decision:

 Information Note on modern awards and industries;
 Information Note on bargaining by business size;

                                               
13 Exhibit AIG1 at paras [17 – [20].
14 [2020] FWCFB 1574
15 [2020] FWCFB 1690
16 [2020] FWCFB 1741
17 [2020] FWCFB 2108
18 [2020] FWCFB 2367
19 [2020] FWCFB 1837






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb1837.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/2020fwcfb2367.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb2108.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb1741.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb1690.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb1574.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202012-information-note-bargaining-010420.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202012-information-note-awards-industries-010420.pdf


[2020] FWCFB 2316

9

 Information Note on Government responses to the COIVD-19 pandemic; and

 Expert report by Professor Borland.

3. The Fast Food Industry and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

3.1 The Fast Food Industry - General

[34] The Fast Food industry can be broadly characterised as involving the production of 
non-preservable items in that the food produced is for immediate consumption, rather than 
stored for later use or sale.20 The Fast Food Award defines the ‘Fast Food industry’ as: 

‘… the industry of taking orders for and/or preparation and/or sale and/or delivery of:

 Meals, snacks and/or beverages, which are sold to the public primarily to be consumed 
away from the point of sale;

 Take away foods and beverages packaged, sold or served in such a manner as to allow their 
being taken from the point of sale to be consumed elsewhere should the customer so 
decide; and/or

 Food and/or beverages in food courts and/or in shopping centres and/or in retail complexes, 
excluding coffee shops, cafes, bars and restaurants providing primarily a sit down service 
inside the catering establishment.’21

[35] Further, in the Penalty Rates Decision,22 the Full Bench made the following 
observation about the Fast Food sector:

‘The industry is comprised of about 24,600 establishments23 which operate in a number of 
industry sub-sectors (see [1350]). In terms of employee numbers the industry is dominated by 
the QSR (Quick Service Restaurants) major chains which employ about 86 per cent of the 
214,265 Fast Food industry employees. Just under half (98,911 employees; 46 per cent) of 
Fast Food industry employees are employed in McDonald’s outlets.24

[36] As noted above, just under half of Fast Food industry employees are employed by 
McDonalds. In December 2019, the Commission terminated25 the enterprise agreement that 
applied to all McDonald’s outlets in Australia. McDonald’s is the largest fast food chain in 
Australia and the Fast Food Award now applies to its employees.

[37] As we have mentioned, Ai Group filed a witness statement by Mr Cameron Newlands.

[38] RAFFWU advanced a detailed critique of Mr Newlands’ evidence, noting that:

                                               
20 (2017) 256 IR 1 at [1265].
21 Fast Food Industry Award 2010 Clause 3.1
22 [2017] FWCFB 1001.
23 Exhibit SDA 56.
24 Exhibit Ai Group 3 at para 23.
25 Re McDonald’s Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013 [2019] FWCA 8563.






https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/awardmod/variations/2020/am202012-information-note-flex-010420.pdf
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/resources/covid-19-information/information-note-government-responses-2020-03-30-1800.pdf


[2020] FWCFB 2316

10

 the evidence fails to distinguish between the impact on McOpCo restaurants and the 
impact on franchise restaurants;26

 the evidence does not disaggregate the data as between franchise operators who 
have experienced a 30% downturn in revenue (and hence are eligible for 
JobKeeper) and those who have not, and would therefore be eligible for the 
proposed flexibilities;27 and

 the failure to disaggregate the data means that evidence of the measures taken to 
address the impact of COVID-1928 is of no assistance to the Commission, because 
it fails to identify whether these measures affect franchise operators who are 
eligible for JobKeeper, or franchise operators who are not (or both).29

[39] RAFFWU contends that Mr Newlands’ evidence is cast at such a high level of 
generality that it does not assist the Commission in its statutory task and submits:

‘In short, it is not possible to determine from the data the number of franchise operators
affected, nor to the degree to which they have been affected. Nor is there any data from
which the effects can be extrapolated. The failure to call evidence about the financial 
situation of franchisees is unexplained. It can be inferred from the generalised datasets 
that have been provided that McOpCo is able to present its data on a franchise basis. It
has failed to do so and has provided no explanation for that failure. In the absence of
any evidence from McDonald’s that it is unable to disaggregate the data, it should be 
inferred that McDonald’s made a conscious choice to aggregate the data such that the
Commission cannot readily distinguish between the impact on McDonald’s stores and 
franchise stores.’30

[40] We acknowledge that Mr Newlands’ evidence lacks particularity and that this limits its 
probative value. This is one of the reasons we have decided not to vary the award to include 
the proposed close down provision. Despite its obvious limitations there is some value in Mr 
Newlands’ evidence and we have accorded it some weight in our deliberations. We refer to 
those aspects of his evidence in our consideration of the proposed flexibilities.

[41] At [6] – [12] of his Statement Mr Newlands describes McDonalds’ operations. This 
material is uncontroversial and is summarised below.

[42] McDonald's operates restaurants directly through company-owned restaurants (i.e. 
McOpCo Restaurants) and indirectly through Franchisee Restaurants. 

                                               
26 RAFFWU submission, 14 May 2020 at paras [31] – [33].
27 Ibid at paras [34] – [35].
28 Exhibit AIG1 at para [35].
29 RAFFWU submission, 14 May 2020 at para [36].
30 Ibid at para [37].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

11

[43] As at 7 May 2020, there were 996 McDonald's restaurants in operation in Australia, of 
which 135 were McOpCo Restaurants and 861 were Franchisee Restaurants.  The 
McDonalds’ restaurants were located as set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: McDonalds’ restaurants by location

State / Territory
Number of 
McOpCo 

Restaurants

Number of 
Franchisee 

Restaurants
Total

New South Wales 63 238 301

Victoria 25 240 265

South Australia 5 50 55

Western Australia 17 73 90

Northern Territory 0 9 9

Queensland 25 215 240

Australian Capital 
Territory

0 20 20

Tasmania 0 16 16

Total 135 861 996

[44] McDonald’s operates the following main categories of restaurants:

 760 Freestanding restaurants:31 a restaurant that is located in a standalone building 
with its own car park. Freestanding restaurants are located throughout Australia 
including in suburbs, regional areas and on interstate highways.

 103 Food court restaurants:32 a restaurant located in a retail environment, and which 
usually does not have its own restaurant dining area. Instead, it would share the 
dining space with other food outlets. Food court restaurants are generally located in 
shopping centres.

 78 Instore restaurants:33 might be attached to another building, for example, in a 
strip of buildings (and therefore differs to a freestander restaurant as it is not a 
standalone building). An instore restaurant typically does not have a drive-thru or a 
car park but may have a shared customer parking space with other businesses. 
Instore restaurants are generally located in CBD, high-density suburban and high 
foot traffic locations.

 55 Other restaurants:34 restaurants that do not fit into the above three categories. For 
example, there are restaurants that are located on the same site as a petrol station, 
some as part of a designated service centre.

                                               
31 Of those, 113 were McOpCo Restaurants and 647 were Franchisee Restaurants.
32 Of those, 8 were McOpCo Restaurants and 95 were Franchisee Restaurants.
33 Of those, 7 were McOpCo Restaurants and 71 were Franchisee Restaurants.
34 Of those, 7 were McOpCo Restaurants and 48 were Franchisee Restaurants.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

12

3.2 Fast Food Industry Employees

[45] In a decision dealing with some substantive claims to vary the Fast Food Award35 (the 
February 2019 Decision) we set out a ‘profile’ of a typical Fast Food Industry employee. The 
material set out below is drawn from the February 2019 Decision.

[46] The ABS data of direct relevance to the Fast Food Award are limited. A paper36 by 
Commission staff provides a framework for ‘mapping’ modern award coverage to the 
Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC). Under this 
framework, the Fast Food Award is ‘mapped’ to the Takeaway food services industry class, 
which is at the ANZSIC 4-digit level. The Census is the only data source that contains all of 
the employment characteristics for the Fast Food Award.

[47] The most recent data from the Census, for August 2016, show that there were around 
170 000 employees in the Fast Food industry. The profile of employees in the Fast Food 
industry differs from the profile of employees across ‘all industries’ in six aspects:

 employees in the Fast Food industry are more likely to be female (55.1 per cent 
compared to 50.0 per cent of employees across all industries);

 almost 9 in 10 (85.6 per cent) employees in the Fast Food industry are employed on 
a part-time basis (i.e. work fewer than 35 hours per week) compared with only 34.2 
per cent of employees across all industries;

 more than half (57.3 per cent) of employees in the Fast Food industry work 1–15 
hours per week compared with only 11.6 per cent of employees across all 
industries;

 almost 8 in 10 (79.5 per cent) employees in the Fast Food industry are aged between 
15 and 24 years compared with only 16.6 per cent of employees across all 
industries; 

 more than 6 in 10 (63.9 per cent) employees in the Fast Food industry are students 
(59.6 per cent are full-time students and 4.3 per cent study part time) compared with 
13.7 per cent of employees across all industries; and

 almost half (48.8 per cent) of employees in the Fast Food industry had Year 12 or 
equivalent as their highest year of school completed compared with 68.1 per cent of 
employees across all industries.

                                               
35 [2019] FWCFB 272.
36 Preston M, Pung A, Leung E, Casey C, Dunn A and Richter O (2012) ‘Analysing modern award coverage using the 

Australian and New Zealand Industrial Classification 2006: Phase 1 report’, Research Report 2/2012, Fair Work 

Australia.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

13

[48] As to the terms and conditions of employment in Fast Food Industry, the ABS defines 
casual employees as employees without paid leave entitlements.37 Over half of all employed
persons (56.4 per cent) in Accommodation and food services were without paid leave 
entitlements in February 2020, compared with 20.2 per cent of employees across ‘all 
industries’ (Table 3).

Table 2:  Employed persons by status of employment in main job, February 2020

Accommodation and food 
services

All industries

No. (’000s)
Percentage of 
employment

Percentage of 
employment

Employee 827.7 88.5 83.5

With paid leave entitlements 300.1 32.1 63.3

Without paid leave 
entitlements 527.6 56.4 20.2

Owner manager of enterprise 
with employees 75.0 8.0 5.9

Owner manager of enterprise 
without employees 29.8 3.2 10.3

Contributing family worker 2.3 0.2 0.2

Total 934.8 100.0 100.0

Note:  All data are expressed in original terms. 

Source:  ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, Feb 2020, Catalogue No. 6291.0.55.003.

[49] When considering only employees, more than 6 in 10 employees (63.7 per cent) in 
Accommodation and food services were without paid leave entitlements, higher than for 
employees across ‘all industries’ (around one quarter or 24.2 per cent). Full-time employees 
in Accommodation and food services were more likely to be employed with paid leave 
entitlements (71 per cent), however, this proportion was lower than for employees across ‘all 
industries’ (88.3 per cent). Part-time employees in Accommodation and food services were 
more likely to be without paid leave entitlements (81.1 per cent), compared to over half of 
part-time employees across ‘all industries’ (52.2 per cent).

Table 3:  Employees with and without paid leave, February 2020

                                               
37 ABS, Characteristics of Employment, Aug 2018, Catalogue No. 6333.0, Explanatory notes.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

14

Full-time Part-time All employees

With paid 
leave

Without 
paid leave

With paid 
leave

Without 
paid leave

With paid 
leave

Without 
paid leave

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Accommodation and 
food services

71.0 29.0 18.9 81.1 36.3 63.7

All industries 88.3 11.7 47.8 52.2 75.8 24.2

Source:  ABS, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, Feb 2020, Catalogue No. 6291.0.55.003.

[50] The profile of McDonald’s employees is addressed in Mr Newlands’ evidence. 

[51] As at 30 March 2020, there were 107,556 employees employed at McDonalds’ 
restaurants. Table 4 sets out the breakdown of these employees by employment category.

Table 4: McDonalds’ employees

Number at 
McOpCo 

Restaurants

Number at 
Franchisee 

Restaurants
Total %

Full-time 
employees

882 4,703 5,585 5.2

Part-time 
employees

2,908 13,735 16,643 15.5

Casual 
employees

13,610 71,718 85,328 79.3

Total 17,400 90,156 107,556 100.0

[52] As at 2 March 2020, there were 9603 employees employed at McDonalds’ restaurants 
under the age of 16, some 1650 employed in McOpCo restaurants and the remaining 7953 in 
Franchisee Restaurants.

[53] Young people are over-represented in the Accommodation and Food Services 
industry. Over half of employees in the industry are aged 15 to 24 years (51.5%)38 The 
Minister’s submission notes that:

‘Previous experience from the Global Financial Crisis shows that young people (due to a 
relative lack of skills and experience) and small businesses (less equipped to deal with soft 
demand and less diversified in product offerings) are particularly vulnerable during 
downturns, as demonstrated by a sharp increase in the youth unemployment rate and a
significant increase in small business closures relative to large businesses.’39

Low paid employees – Fast Food Industry

                                               
38 ABS, Characteristics on Employment, cat. no. 6333.0, August 2019
39 Minister’s Submission at para [21].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

15

[54] A threshold of two-thirds of median full-time wages provides ‘a suitable and 
operational benchmark for identifying who is low paid’,40 within the meaning of s.134(1)(a).

[55] The most recent data for median earnings is for August 2019 from the ABS 
Characteristics of Employment (CoE) survey. Data on median earnings are also available 
from the Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours (EEH) for May 2018. These are compared 
to the minimum weekly wages in the Fast Food Award as determined in the Annual Wage 
Review 2018–19, effective 1 July 2019.

[56] Chart 1 shows that the full-time weekly wage for all classifications in the Fast Food 
Award was below both the CoE and EEH measures of two-thirds of median full-time 
earnings.

Chart 1: Comparison of minimum full-time weekly wages in the Fast Food Industry 
Award 2010 and two-thirds of median full-time earnings

Note:  Weekly earnings from the Characteristics of Employment Survey are earnings in the main job for full-time employees. Weekly 
earnings from the Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours are weekly total cash earnings for full-time non-managerial employees paid at the 
adult rate. 

Source:  MA000003; ABS, Characteristics of Employment, Australia, August 2019, Catalogue No. 6333.0; ABS, Employee Earnings and 
Hours, Australia, May 2018, Catalogue No. 6306.0.

3.3 The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

[57] We note that in Professor Borland’s report41 (referred to at [33]) the fast food industry 
is identified as being one that “seem[s] most likely to experience decreases in employment as 
                                               
40 [2017] FWCFB 1001 at [166].

813.60
862.50 875.80 886.50

920.00
973.33

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3—In 
charge of one or 

no persons

Level 3—In 
charge of two or 

more persons

2/3 median full-
time earnings

(CoE)

2/3 median full-
time earnings

(EEH)

$ per week






http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb1001.htm


[2020] FWCFB 2316

16

an immediate consequence of COVID-19”.42 The Fast Food Award was identified as an 
award “where it might be most valuable in the immediate term to allow extra flexibility in 
employment arrangements – in terms of the number of workers affected and the scope for 
adjustment in hours of work”.43

[58] Annexure B to the Application describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
the Fast Food sector. Ai Group contends that:

‘The operations of employers covered by the Award have been significantly impacted. In 
particular, fast food outlets have experienced a dramatic decline in demand from consumers. 
This appears to be attributable to:

(a) Reduced foot traffic in shopping centres given Government restrictions and 
advice concerning the number of people who may gather together and the 
limited purposes for which persons should be leaving their homes.

(b) A prohibition on people dining in food courts in shopping centres.

(c) A prohibition on people dining in fast food restaurants.

(d) Reduced foot traffic through airports given Government restrictions on travel 
and state / territory border crossings.

(e) Reduced foot traffic through central business districts given Government 
advice to work from home wherever possible.

(f) Reduced movement generally, including visiting standalone food outlets, in 
light of Government advice regarding the limited purposes for which persons 
should be leaving their homes.

The pressures on employers covered by the Award at this time are multifaceted and 
cumulative in nature. They include, most notably, concerns about dramatic reductions in 
demand for the products and services they provide and the consequential reductions in revenue 
and demand for labour.’44

[59] The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is releasing weekly administrative data 
from the Australian Taxation Office relating to changes in employee jobs and total wages paid 
as reported by businesses using single touch payroll systems. This covers a very large sample 
of employers, including around 99 per cent of employers with 20 or more employees and 71
per cent of employers with 19 or less employees.45

[60] Between the week ending 14 March 2020 (the week Australia recorded its 100th

confirmed COVID-19 case) and 18 April 2020, the number of employee jobs in 

                                                                                                                                                  
41 Professor Jeff Borland, Benefit from greater flexibility in employment arrangements, a report to the Fair Work 

Commission (March 2020).
42 Professor Jeff Borland, Benefit from greater flexibility in employment arrangements, a report to the Fair Work 

Commission (March 2020) at page 3.
43 Professor Jeff Borland, Benefit from greater flexibility in employment arrangements, a report to the Fair Work 

Commission (March 2020) at page 4.
44 Ai Group, Application at [7] – [8]..
45 ABS, Weekly Payroll Jobs and Wages in Australia, Week ending 18 April 2020, Catalogue No. 6160.0.55.001.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

17

Accommodation and food services declined by 33.4 per cent (Chart 2), the largest decline 
across all industries. The decline in Accommodation and food services was more than 4 times 
larger than for all industries (–7.5 per cent) over the same period. Total wages similarly 
declined by 30.3 per cent in Accommodation and food service, compared with 8.2 per cent 
across all industries. 

[61] The change in the number of employee jobs in Accommodation and food services has 
been relatively stable since the week ending 11 April 2020, while total wages have been 
stable since the week ending 4 April 2020. We return to this observation later.

Chart 2:  Change in employee jobs and total wages, week ending

Note:  Data are for the week ending. 

Source:  ABS, Weekly Payroll Jobs and Wages in Australia, Week ending 18 April 2020, Catalogue No. 6160.0.55.001.

[62] As identified in the Minister’s submission, ABS data shows that:

(a) in April 2020, 88% of businesses in the Accommodation and Food Services 
industry anticipated reduced cash flow and 84% anticipated reduced demand 
for goods and services;46

(b) this industry contributes around $43 billion to the Australia economy per 
year,47 and employs over 827,000 employees, or 7.6 per cent of all 
employees;48

                                               
46 ABS, Business Indicators Business Impacts of COVID-19, cat. no. 5676.0.55.003, April 2020

60

70

80

90

100

110

14-Mar-20 21-Mar-20 28-Mar-20 04-Apr-20 11-Apr-20 18-Apr-20

Accommodation and food services, employees Accommodation and food services, wages

All industries, employees All industries, wages

Index (100 = 14 March 2020)








[2020] FWCFB 2316

18

(c) more than two-thirds (68.8 per cent) of employees are remunerated based on 
modern awards or more generous individual arrangements (43.2 per cent and 
25.7 per cent respectively).49

[63] Mr Newlands’ evidence regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is set out at 
paragraph [13] of his statement where he states that as a result of Government restrictions 
implemented to stop the spread of COVID-19:

‘(a) Dine-in areas in all freestanding and instore restaurants have been closed. These stores are 
offering only drive thru, takeaway and delivery.

(b) Customers of food court restaurants have not had access to a dine-in area.  68 restaurants 
were closed as at 30 April 2020. McDonald’s is actively working to re-open restaurants where 
we can, but where this has occurred there are different trading hours, reduced service offerings 
(i.e. limited menus) and reduced staff levels. We have opened 28 of the previously closed 
restaurants but have not made a decision about when or how many of the additional stores will 
be reopened in the near future.’50

[64] Mr Newlands’ evidence is that he has:

‘observed a significant variation in the extent to which McDonalds’ restaurants have been 
impacted by COVID-19. Whilst not all restaurants have been impacted in the same way, some 
have been severely impacted. I have not previously observed greater disparity in the 
performance of McDonalds’ restaurants.’51

[65] Chart 152 in Mr Newlands’ statement shows the standard deviation of performance of 
McOpCo and Franchisee Restaurants during February 2020, March 2020 and April 2020. It 
identifies that the standard deviation was greatest in April 2020.

[66] In his evidence Mr Newlands notes a correlation between the extent of the impact on 
McDonalds’ restaurants and the location of the restaurant. The charts set out below show sales 
comparative data (i.e. a comparison of sales from restaurants that were open in April 2020 as 
compared to the same restaurants in April 2019). Mr Newlands sets out four examples to 
illustrate this point.

1. Restaurants located in CBDs have experienced a more significant downturn in 
sales than restaurants located in suburbs. 

                                                                                                                                                  
47 ABS, National Accounts, cat. no. 5206.0, December quarter 2019
48 ABS, Labour Force Detailed Quarterly, cat. no. 6291.0.55.003, February 2020
49 ABS, Employee Earnings and Hours, cat. no. 6306.0, May 2018
50 Exhibit AIG1 at para [13].
51 Exhibit AIG1 at para [21].
52 Exhibit AIG1 at para [22].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

19

[67] Chart 3 below compares combined sales at McOpCo Restaurants and Franchisee 
Restaurants during April 2020 against the same set of restaurants during April 2019 by 
reference to the location of the restaurants. It identifies an overall reduction of 14.6% in sales 
and highlights a reduction of over 60% in city restaurants.

Chart 3: Reduction in sales, total and by location (April 2020)53

2. Restaurants located in a food court have experienced a more significant 
downturn in sales than restaurants that have a drive-thru. Many of these were 
closed in April 2020 because they could not viably continue to trade.

[68] Chart 4 compares combined sales at McOpCo Restaurants and Franchisee Restaurants 
during April 2020 against the same set of restaurants during April 2019 by reference to 
restaurant type. As can be seen, sales at restaurants in food courts were more than 74% lower 
than April 2019 and sales at instore restaurants were almost 60% lower. By comparison, sales 
at free standing restaurants were 9.4% lower than they were in April 2019.

Chart 4: Reduction in sales, total and by restaurant type (April 2020)54

                                               
53 Exhibit AIG1 at para [25].
54 Exhibit AIG1 at para [27].

-14.6%

-62.3%

-13.0%
-20.3%

Total Business Sales
Comp %

SC % City SC % Suburban SC % Country

-14.6%
-9.4%

-74.4%

-59.2%

-28.1%

Total Business Sales
Comp %

SC % Free Standing SC % Food Court SC % In Store SC % Other Store
Type








[2020] FWCFB 2316

20

3. Some restaurants located on highways between cities or major towns have 
experienced a very significant downturn. For instance, a McDonald’s 
restaurant located on a highway between Sydney and Newcastle has 
experienced a reduction of 63.4% in sales during April 2020 as compared to 
April 2019.

4. The four McDonalds’ restaurants located within the domestic and international 
terminals at Sydney airport employ 403 employees. They are currently closed. 
Eighty-seven of those employees are full-time or part-time employees.

[69] These trends are evident in Chart 5, which shows changes to sales in April 2020 as 
compared to April 2019 by references to times of the day:

Chart 5: Performance by daypart (April 2020)55

[70] According to Mr Newlands, in respect of McDonalds operations, weekends have 
become quieter. In many stores where weekends are normally the busiest part of the week, 
they have become quieter than some weekdays. For instance, Saturdays are ordinarily a busy 
day at many restaurants due to customers who visit in the course of attending sporting 
activities. Many of those sporting activities have not been occurring recently due to COVID-
19. This is evident from Chart 6, which identifies the proportion of sales on each day of the 
week during July – December 2020 as compared to April 2020.

                                               
55 Exhibit AIG1 at para [31].

Total
Business

Sales Comp
%

SC %
Breakfast

SC %
Morning

Snack

SC % Lunch SC %
Afternoon

Snack

SC % Dinner SC % Late
Night

SC %
Extended

Hours








[2020] FWCFB 2316

21

Chart 6: Percentage of sales by day of the week56

[71] At [32] of his witness Statement Mr Newlands observes:

‘In general, the level of demand for McDonalds’ services and products is affected by the 
extent to which people are out of their homes undertaking other activities. It is common 
for customers to call into a McDonald’s restaurant while they are on their way to or 
from undertaking other activities, rather than necessarily leaving their house specifically 
for the purpose of visiting one of our restaurants. Accordingly, the extent to which 
people are not travelling to or from work or other activities has an impact upon our 
sales’57

[72] The measures implemented at McDonald’s restaurants to mitigate the impacts of 
COVID-19 include:

 closing some restaurants: as at 30 April 2020, 68 McDonalds restaurants were 
temporarily closed (13 McOpCo and 55 Franchise) (Note: 28 of the previously 
closed restaurants have been reopened albeit with different hours, reduced staff 
levels and limited menus)58;

 reduced hours of operation: as at 30 April 2020, 83 McDonalds restaurants had 
reduced hours of operation (1 McOpCo and 82 Franchise); and

 a ‘significant number’ of casual employees have not been rostered for work or have 
been rostered to work fewer hours.

                                               
56 Exhibit AIG1 at para [30].
57 Exhibit AIG1 at para [32].
58 Exhibit AIG1 at para [13](b).

This image cannot currently be displayed.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

22

[73] Mr Newlands deals with the impact of COVID-19 on labour requirements in both 
McOpCo restaurants and Franchise restaurants at [36] – [52] of his Statement. In particular 
Mr Newlands’ evidence is that:

 many stores that are still trading now need fewer employees to operate;

 in many instances, there has not been a need for some full-time and part-time 
employees to undertake the work that they would usually perform, either because 
the restaurant is quiet but still trading or because all or part of the store has closed;

 in some cases McOpCo has, to date, continued to provide work to full-time and 
part-time employees in circumstances where the work is not really necessary in 
order to maintain the efficient operation of the store but it has continued to do so in 
preference to terminating the employees;

 it is not uncommon for permanent employees to work predominantly or exclusively 
in a certain part of a restaurant and much of this work is not currently required 
because of either government restrictions on the operation of restaurants or the 
decline in trade;

 employees who work in one part of a McDonald’s restaurant will often not have the 
skills required to work in another part of the restaurant; and

 many of the casual employees that were working at either McOpCo Restaurants or 
Franchisee Restaurants are either not currently being allocated work or are being 
allocated less work. 

[74] As to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Fast Food employers other than
McDonald’s, RAFFWU seek to draw the following findings from Mr Cullinan’s evidence:

‘Collins Foods, a major franchisee of brands including KFC and Taco Bell, reports that, 
excluding the net effect of food courts, the remainder of its KFC network (predominately 
drive-thru restaurants) traded positively through April, with +4.0% same store sales growth
compared to 2019. It also reported increased drive-thru and home delivery sales more than 
offset any negative impact from the current Government restrictions banning dine-in 
transactions. After an initial decline in sales, Taco Bell has had a positive recovery with sales 
over the last few weeks of FY20 returning to pre-COVID levels. Dominos Australia Limited 
reported late in April that while there were significant changes in individual store
performances, both positive and negative, same store sales for Australia remained 
consistent post- COVID-19 at a national level.’59 (footnotes omitted)

[75] RAFFWU contends that Mr Cullinan’s evidence ‘puts beyond doubt that the 
conditions for making the variation do not exist’.60

[76] We note here that this aspect of Mr Cullinan’s evidence (at [40] – [52] of his 
Statement) was not challenged by Ai Group. The evidence points to a diversity of experience 

                                               
59 RAFFWU Submissions 14 May 2020 at para [5].
60 Ibid.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

23

across the Fast Food sector in respect of the impact of the various COVID-19 related 
initiatives and impacts.

4. Submissions

[77] In this section we discuss the general submissions in relation to the Ai Group’s 
proposed variation. In Section 5 we will summarise the submissions directed at specific 
elements of the amended draft variation determination and address the merits of the various
elements of the amended draft variation determination.

[78] Ai Group submits that the variations it proposes are necessary to achieve the modern 
awards objective in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular:

‘Schedule H strikes an appropriate balance between what is “fair” for employers and 
employees in the context of the Pandemic. The proposed variations must be considered in light 
of the acute need for additional flexibilities that are facing employers in the current context. It 
is important to note in this regard that the variations proposed are temporary. Subject to an 
application being made to extend the operation of Schedule H, they would cease to operate 
after three months.’

[79] Ai Group relies on the consent of the SDA (at least in respect of part of its proposed 
variation, a point to which we shall return to shortly), and submits:

‘…we consider that the consent of the major registered industrial associations with an interest in 
the Award, in itself, demonstrates the critical situation the parties and their constituencies find 
themselves in. The opposition of RAFFWU (which is not a registered employee organisation) 
does not detract from the weight that should be afforded to the consent position.’61

[80] We note here that the SDA’s position is relevant, but it is far from decisive.62

[81] Ai Group also relies on the recent Commission decisions which have varied modern 
awards in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see [29] – [32] above). 

[82] We note here that Ai Group’s reliance on the Commission’s earlier decisions in 
relation to the Hospitality, Restaurants and Private Sector Clerical Awards is misconceived. 
Contrary to Ai Group’s contention that there are parallels between those decisions and the 
circumstances of the present matter, we think there are clear points of distinction. In 
particular:

 the variations in respect of each of these awards only operate until 30 June 2020 –
Ai Group is proposing that the variations to the Fast food Award operate until mid-
August 2020;

 at the time the earlier variations were made there was a high degree of uncertainty 
regarding the timeframe associated with the easing of COVID-19 related 

                                               
61 Ai Group submission, 12 May 2020 at para [35].
62 See [2020] FWCFB 272 at [112] – [114].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

24

restrictions – there is now a road map for the easing of restrictions and some 
restrictions have already been eased;

 the variation in respect of these awards were determined before the implementation 
of the JobKeeper Scheme and the flexibilities made available through Part 6-4C of 
the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Act; and

 each of the previous matters were supported by all of the industrial parties – that is 
not the case in respect of the matter before us.

[83] Each of the COVID-19 related award variations made by the Commission turns on its 
own facts. While the general context may be the same; the impact of the pandemic has not 
been uniform in its severity, as is evident from Mr Newlands’ evidence regarding the impact 
on McDonalds’ operations.

[84] We would, however, reiterate our observation in the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair 
Services and Retail Award decision:63

‘In circumstances where an application to vary a modern award proposes flexibilities which 
are the same or analogous to those which apply to JobKeeper enabling directions and requests 
under Part 6-4C of the Act it is entirely appropriate that such a variation also incorporate the 
relevant safeguards provided in Part 6-4C. Indeed, in the context of this Application, we have 
given significant weight to the provision of the safeguards in Schedule J set out above at [91] 
in our consideration of whether the variation of the Vehicle Award in the manner proposed 
would ensure that the Award provides ‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and 
conditions’ within the meaning of s.134(1).’

[85] The SDA supports two aspects of the revised draft determination but opposes the 
proposed close down clause (clause H.9).

[86] The SDA submits that in its negotiations with Ai Group over the past weeks it has 
been concerned to ensure that any clauses permitting variations to conditions are:

 time limited;

 reasonable in all the circumstances; and

 provide access to arbitration.

[87] The NRA supports the Application and agrees with the provisional view expressed in 
the May Statement. The NRA notes that:

‘it has some concerns with clause H.9.3, which requires the employer (but not any other party) 
to pre-emptively consent to the arbitration of any dispute which may or may not arise under 
clause H.9.

These concerns do not alter the NRA’s support generally for the application, and the NRA 
does not press these concerns as a ground of opposition in this particular application.’

                                               
63 [2020] FWCFB 2367 at [93]








[2020] FWCFB 2316

25

[88] The Minister submits that the proposed variation is designed to fill the ‘regulatory 
gap’ for businesses who are unable to access the payment and flexibilities contained in section 
14 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020. Ai 
Group advances a similar argument. The Minister supports the Application and submits that
‘the proposal is a measured and proportionate one’. As to the modern awards objective, the 
Minister advances the following submission:

‘The measures contained in the Commission's proposed variation represent a temporary but 
necessary response to a current extraordinary situation which is faced by Australian businesses 
and their employees.  

Section 134(1) of the FW Act requires the Fair Work Commission to ensure that modern 
awards (along with the NES) provide a 'fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and
conditions', taking into account the factors identified in the balance of the section.

In this case, the extraordinary circumstances associated with COVID-19, and in particular the 
risk to security of employment identified in the Statement justify the measures proposed by the 
Application, and will contribute positively to the 'fairness' and 'relevance' of the Fast Food 
Award.  It is appropriate that the amendments be introduced on a temporary basis as a specific 
and time-limited response to the current circumstances.

The objective in section 134(h), which includes the sustainability, performance and 
competitiveness of the national economy remains relevant.  The provisions will assist in 
maintaining employment and the viability of businesses.’64

[89] RAFFWU opposes the Application and contends that the ‘proposed variation 
undermines the minimum terms and conditions of young, vulnerable and low-paid part-time 
and casual employees’ and ‘is inimical to the modern awards objective’.65 RAFFWU submits 
that Ai Group has failed to demonstrate that the variation proposed is necessary to ensure that 
the Fast Food Award achieves the modern awards objective and that:

‘The Commission cannot be satisfied of the need to vary the Award to achieve the modern 
awards objective, nor can it be satisfied that, even if such a variation were necessary, the 
proposed variation achieves that objective. The jurisdictional fact giving rise to the power to 
vary is not enlivened on the evidence and, consequently, the Commission has no power to 
grant the application. The Application must be dismissed’.66

[90] RAFFWU contends that:

 Ai Group has ‘manifestly failed to demonstrate that the viability of any employer in 
the industry (not being eligible for JobKeeper) is threatened’;67 and

 there is no material before the Commission sufficient to establish that the variation 
proposed is necessary within the meaning of s.138.

                                               
64 Commonwealth Minister for Industrial Relations submission 12 May 2020 at paras [22] – [25]
65 Ibid at para [1].
66 Ibid at para [6].
67 Ibid at para [4].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

26

[91] RAFFWU also submits that we should disregard the claims by Ai Group and the 
Minister that there is a ‘regulatory gap’, the closing of which is achieved by the proposed 
variation,:

‘There is no ‘regulatory gap’. There is only policychoice.

The JobKeeper scheme aims to assist entities that have a significant decline in turnover due to 
the economic impacts of Coronavirus. The Commonwealth set the benchmark for eligibility 
for the benefits contained in the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and 
Benefits) Rules 2020 at 30% for businesses with turnover of less than 1 billion and 50% for 
businesses with turnover of more than 1 billion.

The requirement that larger businesses need to have a greater decline in turnover than smaller 
businesses to satisfy the basic decline in turnover test is said to recognise the ‘greater capacity 
of larger businesses to withstand the economic impacts of the Coronavirus’. By implication 
then, the lower threshold was also set at a rate that the Commonwealth determined reflects the 
capacity of smaller business with a lower decline in turnover to withstand the economic effects 
of the Coronavirus.

The thresholds reflect a deliberate, and presumably considered, policy choice by the 
Commonwealth. The thresholds do not create a ‘gap’; instead, they carve out an area of 
regulatory choice. If the Commonwealth now considers that business with a downturn of less 
than 30% (or 50%, as the case may be) ought to be eligible for JobKeeper, the regulations can 
be amended accordingly. However, the Commonwealth does not presently propose to make 
such a change.

The Commission should not, therefore, be drawn on this false equivalence. The Commonwealth 
determined that businesses with a downturn of less than 30% have a sufficient capacity to 
withstand the economic impacts of the Coronavirus. It cannot now suggest that this deliberate 
policy choice creates a ‘gap’ which should be filled by low-paid workers forgoing income in
order to sustain employer profits.’68 (footnotes omitted)

[92] We agree with RAFFWU’s submission that there is ‘no regulatory gap’. Rather the 
scope of the JobKeeper scheme is a deliberate policy choice by the Commonwealth.

[93] In the course of oral argument counsel for the Minister accepted that reference to a 
‘regulatory gap’ was not the most felicitous term and that:

‘The JobKeeper scheme operates in accordance with its terms, and there are some employers
who qualify and some who don't. "Regulatory gap" is perhaps more often used where there's 
an inadvertent lacuna in legislation, and we don't suggest that's the case.

However, the Minister's position, and his support for this application, proceeds on the basis 
that JobKeeper is one initiative, and others may also be required; and on the basis that the 
Minister is satisfied that the issue of job losses, which is the Minister's primary concern, can 

                                               
68 RAFFWU Submission 14 May 2020 at para [4].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

27

occur in different sectors of the economy, including those within the JobKeeper scheme and 
those who are not.

And therefore consistent with the Minister's concern to maintain employment, this application, 
as has previous applications, does have the Minister's support.’69

[94] However the position is characterised it may be inferred from the material before us 
that there are likely to be Fast Food industry employers who do not qualify for the JobKeeper 
scheme but who have nevertheless been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
associated measures to contain it.

[95] It also seems to us that the context in which the Application is being advanced and the 
character of the variations proposed are important contextual considerations. In particular, the 
variations proposed are:

 temporary in nature;

 advanced with the consent of the major union (at least in respect of two aspects of 
the claim); and

 have the stated aim of preserving the ongoing viability of businesses and preserving 
jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. The Variations Proposed

[96] In this section we describe the variations proposed by Ai Group and set out the 
submissions and evidence in respect of each element of the amended draft variation 
determination. We also make some observations regarding the merits of each element of the 
proposal advanced and identify the amendments we propose to make to Ai Group’s proposal.
In making these amendments we note that subject to the obligation to accord procedural 
fairness, we are not bound to vary the award in the terms proposed by Ai Group (see s.599).

[97] The prospect of the Commission inserting further safeguards in the proposed schedule 
was canvassed in the submissions and during the course of oral argument. In its submissions 
of 12 May 2020 Ai Group expressly alludes to such a prospect:

‘If the Commission forms the view that the safeguards provided within the proposed clause are 
insufficient to ensure that the requirements of s.93(3) are satisfied, we accept that it is open to 
it to vary the Award in a manner other than that which we have proposed. Moreover, we 
consider that the Full Bench should take such a step, rather than declining to grant the 
application, if it forms the view that it is necessary. We nonetheless note that such a step has 
not been taken in the context of the Commission’s decision to insert similar provisions in the 
Restaurants Award, Clerks Award or the Hospitality Award.

In advancing this submission we also acknowledge the reasoning of the Full Bench at 
paragraphs [91] to [94] of its decision to vary the Vehicle Award:

                                               
69 Transcript, 15 May 2020 at PN155 – PN157.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

28

‘[91] The safeguards provided in Schedule J are similar to those which apply to all 
‘JobKeeper enabling directions’ under Part 6-4C of the Act, in particular: 

 A JobKeeper enabling direction does not apply to an employee if it is 
unreasonable in all the circumstances (s 789GK). 

 A JobKeeper enabling direction does not apply to an employee unless the 
employer gave the employee written notice of the employer’s intention to 
give the direction (s 789GM). 

 The Commission may deal with a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C 
by arbitration (s 789GV).

[92] As noted in the Joint Employer submission the safeguards in Schedule J are 
intended to ensure that ‘employees receiving directions pursuant to Schedule J are not 
in a materially different position to those receiving directions pursuant to Part 6-4C of 
the Act’.

[93] In circumstances where an application to vary a modern award proposes 
flexibilities which are the same or analogous to those which apply to JobKeeper 
enabling directions and requests under Part 6-4C of the Act it is entirely appropriate 
that such a variation also incorporate the relevant safeguards provided in Part 6-4C. 
Indeed, in the context of this Application, we have given significant weight to the 
provision of the safeguards in Schedule J set out above at [91] in our consideration of 
whether the variation of the Vehicle Award in the manner proposed would ensure that 
the Award provides ‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’ 
within the meaning of s.134(1). 70

If the Full Bench considers that the absence of any of the ‘general safeguards’ contained in the 
Vehicle Award schedule would prevent the proposed variation to the Fast Food Award 
forming a necessary part of a fair and relevant minimum safety net, we would, as a position in 
the alternate to our original claim, support the inclusion of comparable provisions in the Fast 
Food Award.’71

[98] We return to the issue of safeguards and other amendments we propose, later.

[99] As mentioned earlier, the Application seeks to add a new schedule – Schedule H – to 
the Fast Food Award. Schedule H proposes flexibilities in relation to:

 a temporary and alternate scheme for ‘Flexible part time employment’ (the Flexible 
part time work term);

 a term which provides that, in certain circumstances an employer may request that 
an employee take paid annual leave. The employee is obliged to consider and not 
unreasonably refuse the request (the Annual leave term); and

                                               
70 [2020] FWCFB 2356
71 Ai Group submission, 12 May 2020 at paras [60] – [62].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

29

 a term enabling an employee to require an employee to take annual leave, or if the 
employee has not accrued sufficient paid annual leave, unpaid leave, as part of a 
close down of its operations or part of its operations (the Close down term).

[100] The SDA proposed a series of amendments to the draft determination initially filed by 
Ai Group. These variations are set out at Annexure A to the SDA’s submissions of 15 May 
2020. The SDA submits:

‘The SDA has engaged in discussions regarding variations to the Award with the sole aim of 
ensuring that workers and businesses impacted by COVID-19 are able to access reasonable 
and temporary measures which ensure as much ongoing paid employment for as many 
workers as possible, where JobKeeper support is not available to the workers and businesses 
in question.

The SDA continues to strongly support fair protections for workers’ rights in these 
circumstances, and further amendments to the determinations are proposed to address the 
matters raised by the Commission. Subject to these amendments, the SDA supports the 
proposed variations.’72

[101] In relation to the ‘Flexible part-time work term’ the SDA has proposed two additional 
safeguards:

 the employer and employee must have ‘genuinely made the agreement … without 
coercion or duress’; and

 an agreement under the term is not valid unless the employee is also advised in 
writing that the employer consents to a dispute about whether the agreement was 
genuinely made being settled by the Fair Work Commission through arbitration in 
accordance with clause 9.5 – Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act.

[102] In relation to the Annual leave term the SDA proposal adds the following safeguards: 

 an employer may only make a request where it is reasonable in all the 
circumstances; and

 an employee is not required to take leave unless the employee is advised in writing 
that the employer consents to a dispute about whether the employer’s request is 
reasonable in all the circumstances being settled by the Fair Work Commission 
through arbitration in accordance with clause 9.5 – Dispute Resolution and section 
739(4) of the Act.

[103] We note here that the changes proposed by the SDA strengthen the safeguards in 
respect of these two proposals and that absent such safeguards we would not have been 
satisfied that the proposed flexibilities were ‘fair’ within the meaning of s.134(1). 

                                               
72 SDA submission, 15 May 2020 at paras [29] – [30].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

30

[104] The SDA has withdrawn its support for the Close down term.73 We return to this issue 
shortly.

[105] In its further submission of 15 May 2020, Ai Group adopted the SDA’s draft 
determination, save in respect of the Close down term. Ai Group continues to press this aspect 
of its proposed variation.

[106] Before turning to its substantive terms there are two general aspects of the proposed 
schedule we wish to deal with.

[107] The first issue concerns the term, as set out in clause H.2:

H.2 Schedule H operates from [insert date] (Date of Operation) until [3 months 
from Date of Operation]. The period of operation can be extended on 
application to the Fair Work Commission. 

[108] We are not persuaded that the 3 month period of operation proposed is warranted. As 
we have mentioned, the COVID-19 restrictions on cafes and restaurants are easing. Indeed 
since the hearing of this matter on 15 May 2020 the Victorian Premier has announced that on 
1 June 2020 cafes, restaurants and the dining areas of pubs and clubs will reopen with up to 
20 patrons indoors (3 weeks later, on 22 June that limit will go up to 50 patrons and in mid 
July it will increase to 100 patrons).74

[109] It is also relevant that in terms of employee numbers the Fast Food sector is dominated 
by the Quick Service Restaurant chains. These chains employ more than 85 per cent of Fast 
Food industry employees and, as we have mentioned, just under half of all Fast Food industry 
employees are employed in McDonald’s outlets. The dominance of large employers in the 
Fast Food sector suggests that collective bargaining is a viable means of securing any 
flexibilities required to respond to the circumstances produced by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
In that regard we note that s.189 provides that the Commission may approve an enterprise 
agreement that does not pass the ‘better off overall test’ if it is satisfied that ‘because of 
exceptional circumstances, the approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public 
interest’.

[110] The only evidence before us about the particular circumstance of a Fast Food industry 
employer relates to McDonald’s. An enterprise agreement has applied to McDonald’s in the 
past and we see no reason why McDonald’s cannot engage in collective bargaining for an 
enterprise agreement that suits the needs of its business. Such a process would also provide an 
opportunity for the employees directly affected to have a say. We accept that such a process 
takes time, and that is one of the reasons in favour of varying the Award, but we are not 
persuaded that a period of 3 months is necessary. We propose that clause H.2 be amended as 
follows:

                                               
73 SDA submission, 15 May 2020.
74 Statement from The Hon Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria, 17 May 2020.






https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/200517-Statement-From-The-Premier-1.pdf


[2020] FWCFB 2316

31

H.2 Schedule H operates from 19 May 2020 (Date of Operation) until 31 July 
2020(3 months from Date of Operation). The period of operation can be 
extended on application to the Fair Work Commission.

[111] In limiting the period during which Schedule H will operate we are also conscious that 
s.138 provides that a modern award may only include terms ‘to the extent necessary to 
achieve the modern awards objective. As noted by the Full Federal Court in Anglo American:

‘The words “only to the extent necessary” in s.138 emphasise the fact that it is the 
minimum safety net and minimum wages objective to which the modern awards are 
directed. Other terms and conditions beyond the minimum are to be the product of 
enterprise bargaining, and enterprise agreements under Pt 2-4’.75

[112] Any party seeking to extend the operation of the schedule (or any similar COVID-19 
related variation) will be required to make a new application under s.158 supported by 
probative evidence.

[113] The second issue concerns Clause H.7 which states:

‘H.7 Any requirement issued by an employer under Schedule H does not apply to 
the employee if the requirement is unreasonable.’

[114] For the reasons set out later, we have concluded that the Close down term lacks merit 
and we do not propose to grant that aspect of Ai Group’s proposal. It follows that the 
reference in clause H.7 to any ‘requirement issued by an employer’ is no longer apt. The 
remaining parts of the schedule deal with consent arrangements  or with an employer request
that an employee take paid annual leave. The capacity for an employer to request that an 
employee take annual leave can only be made where ‘it is reasonable in all the 
circumstances’. Accordingly, we see no need for clause H.7 and will delete it.

[115] We have renumbered the clauses to reflect the deletion of what was H.7.

[116] We now turn to consider each of these proposed flexibilities in detail.

Clause H.7 – Part-time employment

[117] Proposed clause H.7 provides as follows:

H.7 Flexible part-time employment

While Schedule H is in operation and subject to written agreement between an 
employee and their employer in accordance with clause H.7.2, the following 
provisions will, in relation to that employee, operate instead of clause 12 of the
award until [insert date 3 months from the Date of Operation]:

                                               
75 CFMEU v Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 123 at [23]; cited with approval in Shop, 

Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [45].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

32

H.7.1 A part time employee is an employee who:

(a) Works at least 8 but less than 38 hours per week;

(b) Has reasonably predictable hours of work; and

(c) Receives on a pro-rata basis, equivalent pay and conditions to those of 
full-time employees.

H.7.2 The employer and the part-time employee will agree in writing upon:

(a) The number of hours of work which are guaranteed to be provided and 
paid to the employee each week or, where the employer operates a 
roster, the number of hours of work which are guaranteed to be 
provided and paid to the employee over the roster cycle (the 
guaranteed minimum hours); and

(b) The days of the week, and the periods in each of those days, when the 
employee will be available to work the guaranteed minimum hours (the 
employee’s agreed availability).

H.7.3 The employer and the employee must have genuinely made the agreement 
mentioned in clause H.7.2 without coercion or duress.

H.7.4 An agreement made under clause H.7.2 is not valid unless the employee is also 
advised in writing that the employer consents to a dispute about whether the 
agreement was genuinely made being settled by the Fair Work Commission 
through arbitration in accordance with clause 9.5 – Dispute Resolution and 
section 739(4) of the Act.

H.7.5 The employee must not be rostered to work less than 3 consecutive hours in 
any shift.

H.7.6 The guaranteed minimum hours shall not be less than 8 hours per week.

H.7.7 Any change to the guaranteed minimum hours may only occur with written 
consent of the part-time employee.

H.7.8 An employee may be offered ordinary hours in addition to the guaranteed 
minimum hours (additional hours) within the employee’s agreed 
availability. The employee may agree to work those additional hours provided 
that:

(a) The additional hours are offered in accordance with clause 25 – Hours 
of work and clause 26 – Overtime;

(b) The employee may not be rostered for work outside of the employee’s 
agreed availability;

(c) agreed additional hours are paid at ordinary rates (including any 
applicable penalties payable for working ordinary hours at the relevant 
times);








[2020] FWCFB 2316

33

(d) An employee will accrue entitlements such as annual leave and 
personal/carer’s leave on agreed additional hours worked;

(e) The agreement to work additional hours may be withdrawn by a part-
time employee with 14 days written notice;

(f) The employee can refuse to work additional hours when offered on any 
occasion;

(g) Additional hours worked in accordance with this clause are not overtime; and

(h) Where there is a requirement to work overtime in accordance with 
clause 26, overtime rates will apply.

H.7.9 A part-time employee who immediately prior to the Date of Operation has a 
written agreement with their employer for a regular pattern of hours is entitled to 
continue to be rostered in accordance with that agreement, unless that agreement is 
replaced by a new written agreement made in accordance with clause H.7.2. If a part-
time employee agrees to such a change, they shall, beyond Schedule H ceasing 
operation, revert to the previously agreed regular pattern of hours.

H.7.10 If an employee is first employed as a part-time employee during the operation 
of Schedule H, their employment beyond Schedule H ceasing operation will be on a 
casual basis unless:

(a) the employer and employee agree that the employee will be engaged on 
a part-time basis beyond this period, and

(b) the employer and employee reach agreement in writing on the matters 
identified in with clause 12.

[118] Proposed clause H.7 operates as follows:

1. The provision would apply to pre-existing part-time employees and new 
employees employed pursuant to these provisions, only where the employer 
and employee reach agreement in accordance with clause H.7.2. Clause H.7.2 
contemplates tha1. t an employer and employee may reach agreement in 
writing upon both of the following:

(i) The number of hours of work that the employee is guaranteed to be 
provided and paid for each week or roster cycle, as relevant
(Guaranteed Minimum Hours).

(ii) The days of the week and the periods in each of those days when the 
employee will be available to work (Agreed Availability). 

2. An agreement under clause H.7.2 must have been ‘genuinely made’, without 
coercion or duress.

3. An agreement made under clause H.7.2 is not valid unless the employer 
consents to a dispute about whether the agreement was genuinely made being 
settled by the Commission through arbitration.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

34

4. An employee’s Guaranteed Minimum Hours may be changed by written 
agreement.

5. The clause requires that an employee must not be rostered to work for less than 
3 consecutive hours in any shift and that the Guaranteed Minimum Hours must 
be at least 8 hours per week. Together, these aspects of the proposed clause 
impose a floor on the number of hours that an employee may be required to 
work in a shift and in a week, respectively.

6. An employee’s hours of work are further regulated by the proposed definition 
of part-time employment, which relevantly states that a part-time employee 
will have reasonably predictable hours of work.

7. An employee may be offered ordinary hours of work within their Agreed 
Availability in addition to their Guaranteed Minimum Hours, provided that the 
various conditions at clause H.7.8(a) – (h) are met. We do not propose to set 
out all of those conditions but highlight that:

(i) Additional hours of work are to be paid at ordinary rates (unless they 
constitute overtime, in accordance with clause 26). The proposed model 
of engagement of part-time employment enables an employer to 
provide permanent employees with paid hours of work despite reduced 
customer demand in a more flexible and agile way. Specifically, an 
employer can increase the number of ordinary hours to be worked by an 
employee in the event of, for instance, an unexpected spike in customer 
demand or a need to cover staff absences, absent the cost imposition of 
overtime rates. It also enables an employer to continue to engage part-
time employees on the basis of what might be a more conservative 
guaranteed number of ordinary hours in a week than what is currently 
agreed under clause 12; with the prospect of increasing those hours as 
needed without being deterred by the impact of paying overtime rates.

(ii) Importantly, an employee cannot be required to work additional hours. 
An employee can refuse to work additional hours when offered on any 
occasion. An employee can also subsequently withdraw their agreement 
to work those hours, provided that the employer is provided with 14 
days’ notice.

8. Clause 12, which regulates part-time employment, would not apply where an 
employer and employee have reached agreement pursuant to clause H.7.

9. At clause H.7.9 and clause H.7.10, the proposal deals with the manner in which 
employees who have reached an agreement under clause H.7.2 will revert to 
part-time or casual employment under the Award when Schedule H ceases to 
operate.

[119] Proposed Clause H.7 provides a temporary and alternate scheme for part-time 
employment and in circumstances where clause H.7 applies, clause 12 of the Fast Food 
Award does not apply.

[120] Ai Group submits that: 








[2020] FWCFB 2316

35

‘Clause [H.7] reflects a carefully constructed and sophisticated mechanism for enabling the 
provision of paid work on an ongoing and permanent basis, whilst providing for greater 
flexibility in relation to the treatment of hours worked by an employee that are in addition to 
their Guaranteed Minimum Hours. Various elements of the clause are deliberately designed to 
ensure that employees are offered work in accordance with their indicated availability and to 
ensure that employees have an ability to refuse to work any additional hours offered to them.

Clause [H.7] is, in our submission, an appropriate temporary measure that will facilitate the 
sustainable and ongoing employment of part-time employees in what is a dynamic and 
unprecedented environment warranting the grant of greater flexibility than that which is 
currently afforded by clause 12 of the Award.’76

[121] Mr Newlands’ evidence as to the necessity for the proposed term is at [57] – [65] of 
his Statement, in short Mr Newlands says that the changes to patterns of customer demand 
and trade has in some cases resulted in a misalignment between agreed hours of work of part 
time employees and the restaurants’ need for them to work.

[122] At [59] Mr Newlands says:

‘Without an ability to agree with a part-time employee that they will temporarily work different 
hours on a more flexible basis, I am concerned that there may not be a need for certain part-
time positions to continue and that as a result, such positions will be redundant.’77

[123] At [63] – [65] Mr Newlands also says:

‘I expect that in some circumstances the provisions will also enable stores to offer potential 
new permanent part-time opportunities with some guarantee of hours of work even though the 
restaurant cannot be certain of the precise hours of work that will be undertaken each day or 
week. As things hopefully improve the restaurants will also be able to offer additional hours. 

I expect that the provisions will result in both McOpCo Restaurants and Franchisee 
Restaurants being more prepared to offer additional hours to part-time employees beyond their 
‘guaranteed hours’ rather than trying to struggle through busier period with less employees in 
order to avoid paying overtime rates. McDonald’s restaurants generally endeavour to roster 
part-time employees in a way that avoids or at the very least minimises the additional cost of 
paying overtime rates. 

If employees agree to temporarily work under the proposed part-time work arrangements, it 
will provide restaurants with a better capacity to adjust staffing levels to reflect changes in 
patterns in customer demand than is available under the current arrangements. This would 
assist greatly as it is very difficult to predict how patterns of customer demand and staffing 
requirements will change in the months ahead.’78

                                               
76 Annexure B to the Application at [24] – [25].
77 Exhibit AIG1 at para [59].
78 Exhibit AIG1 at paras [63] – [65].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

36

[124] Mr Newlands also says that the availability of many casual and permanent employees 
has changed during the pandemic:

‘Many employees are now temporarily available to work at times or on days that they would 
not have been in the past due to other activities that they are engaged in being cancelled (such 
as community or sporting activities). 

Some employees are indicating that they are wanting to work additional hours because their 
partners have suffered a loss of income or work.

Conversely, some employees are not available to work their usual hours due to their changed 
circumstances such as varied childcare responsibilities arising from school closures. 
Some employees have indicated, in effect, that they either do not want to or are not available 
to work hours that they would ordinarily be expected to work for reasons associated with 
COVID-19.’79

[125] RAFFWU contends that in respect of part-time employees, the effect of the proposed 
variation is to:

‘create a sub-class of part-time employees who are, in effect, minimum hour casual 
employees. This class of worker is entitled to a minimum of 8 hours per week (which may be
significantly less than their existing entitlement) but is otherwise subject to the vagaries of 
casual employment. They do not know from week to week the number of hours they will be 
offered, the days on which they will be asked to work those hours or the start and finishing 
times of their shifts. They must offer wide ‘availabilities’ to maximise the prospects of 
securing work and plan to provide safe care for their children and loved ones throughout those 
windows in order to hold themselves ready to work hours that may never eventuate. These 
workers are not compensated for the disabilities attaching to casual employment by way of 
casual loading, but nor are they entitled to overtime for hours worked in excess of their
minimum agreed hours of work.’80

[126] In short RAFFWU submits that:

‘the clause permits the creation of a class of worker who has all of the uncertainty of casual 
employment, but without the offset of casual loading and with all the obligations of permanent 
employment, but without any entitlement to overtime.’81

[127] RAFFWU notes that the variation also has consequences for casual employees. The
clause allows employers to (with consent, a concept addressed below) convert casual
employees to part-time employees, relieving them of the burden of paying casual loading but
without assuming the liability of paying overtime, while retaining the rostering flexibilities that 
attach to casual work.

                                               
79 Mr Newlands’ Statement at paras [49] – [52]
80 RAFFWU Submissions 14 May 2020 at [16].
81 Ibid at [18].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

37

[128] As to the requirement for ‘consent’ RAFFWU submits that ‘consent’ is ‘illusory’ in an 
industry where more than 50% of the affected workers are children and where the pressure to 
be ‘flexible’ in order to secure casual hours is ‘well known’, and submits:

‘The vulnerabilities described by the Full Bench (in [2019] FWCFB 272) are only exacerbated by
the uncertainty created by the present economic environment. Self-evidently, the pressure on 
employees to maximise their stated availability to obtain hours is greater the fewer hours that 
are available. And, it is to be observed that some classes of worker are more vulnerable than
others. Workers who do not hold permanent residency are particularly vulnerable. It is highly 
unlikely that workers on insecure visas would refuse a request by their employer to casualise 
their employment.

As such, the ‘consent’ contained within the proposed variation is illusory. The clause lacks 
any meaningful protection for the majority of workers to whom it will apply. The illusion of 
consent should not be allowed to disguise the impact of the clause on vulnerable people.’82

[129] We accept that there have been changes to patterns of consumer demand by reference 
to specific times of the day and days of the week (see Chart 5 at [67] above). In particular it is 
Mr Newlands’ evidence that:

(a) Lunch times are proportionally busier than they were previously whilst demand 
at dinner time has fallen. 

(b) The demand at breakfast time has fallen. This includes a significant portion of 
our coffee sales. For instance, customers who used to regularly buy breakfast 
and coffee on their way to work are no longer doing so, because they are 
working from home.

(c) The late night / early morning demand has fallen. For instance, customers who 
would ordinarily visit a McDonald’s restaurant after finishing a late night shift 
or after spending a night out with friends are not currently doing so.83

[130] We also accept that the proposed Part-time flexibility term will assist businesses to 
respond to the evident change in consumption patterns, thereby retaining part time employees 
in employment. However the current proposal is deficient in that it does not link the 
utilisation of a clause H.7 flexibility agreement with the stated purpose of the provision.

[131] We propose to vary Clause H.7.4 as follows:

‘An agreement made under clause H.7.2 is not valid unless:

(i) the employee is also advised in writing that the employer consents to a 
dispute about the operation of this clause H.7 being settled by the Fair 

                                               
82 Ibid at [20] – [21].
83 Exhibit AIG1 at para [30].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

38

Work Commission through arbitration in accordance with clause 9.5 –
Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act; and

(ii) the agreement is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 
pandemic or Government initiatives to slow the transmission of 
COVID-19 and is necessary to assist the employer to avoid or minimise 
the loss of employment.’

[132] We have extended the scope of disputes which may be the subject of arbitration to 
make it clear that it is not confined to a dispute about whether an agreement was ‘genuinely 
made’ and would encompass a dispute about whether the agreement was made for reasons 
attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and is necessary to assist the employer to avoid or 
minimise the loss of employment (as required by clause H.7.2(ii)).

[133] As to RAFFWU’s submissions regarding the ‘illusory’ nature of the required consent 
in respect of clause H.7, there are statutory provisions directed at proscribing action taken to 
coerce an employee into exercising or not exercising a workplace right. 

[134] We propose to give emphasis to those statutory protections by including notes in 
Schedule H, in the following terms:

NOTE 1: An employee covered by this award who is entitled to the benefit of the 
safeguards in clauses H.7 and H.8 has a workplace right under section 341(1)(a) of the
Act.

NOTE 2: Under section 340(1) of the Act, an employer must not take adverse action 
against an employee because the employee has a workplace right, has or has not 
exercised a workplace right, or proposes or does not propose to exercise a workplace 
right, or to prevent the employee exercising a workplace right. Under section 342(1) of 
the Act, an employer takes adverse action against an employee if the employer 
dismisses the employee, injures the employee in his or her employment, alters the 
position of the employee to the employee’s prejudice, or discriminates between the 
employee and other employees of the employer.

NOTE 3: Under section 343(1) of the Act, a person must not organise or take, or 
threaten to organise or take, action against another person with intent to coerce the 
person to exercise or not exercise, or propose to exercise or not exercise, a workplace 
right, or to exercise or propose to exercise a workplace right in a particular way.

[135] RAFFWU also references our comments in respect of an earlier claim by Ai Group to 
vary the Fast Food Award to introduce a flexible part time work term. We dismissed that 
claim for the reasons set out in our decision84 of 20 February 2019. The earlier claim and the 
current proposed variation are different in a number of important respects. The current 
proposal requires a genuine agreement between the employer and employee; any dispute can 

                                               
84 [2019] FWCFB 272.






http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028


[2020] FWCFB 2316

39

be the subject of an arbitral determination; and an agreement under the proposed Flexible 
part-time work term is not valid unless it is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 
pandemic and is necessary to assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss of 
employment.

[136] As to new employees who may otherwise be engaged as casuals, we would observe 
that the proposed term provides a means whereby they can be employed as a part time 
employee with a guarantee of 8 hours work per week. No such guarantee applies to casual 
employees.

Clause H.8 - Annual leave 

[137] Proposed clause H.8 enables an employer to request that an employee take annual 
leave. Such a request can be made only in certain circumstances and provided that various 
conditions are met. Proposed clause H.8 provides as follows:

H.8 Annual leave

H.8.1 Subject to clause H.8.3 and H.8.7 and despite clauses 28.6, 28.7 and 28.8 
(Annual leave), an employer may, subject to considering an employee’s 
personal circumstances, request the employee in writing to take paid annual 
leave. Such a request must be made a minimum of 72 hours before the date on 
which the annual leave is to commence.

H.8.2 If the employer gives the employee a request to take paid annual leave, and 
complying with the request will not result in the employee having a balance of 
paid annual leave of fewer than 2 weeks, the employee must consider the 
request and must not unreasonably refuse the request.

H.8.3 An employer may only make a request under clause H.8.1 where it is 
reasonable in all the circumstances.

H.8.4 An employee is not required to take leave under clause H.8 unless the 
employee is advised in writing that the employer consents to a dispute about 
whether the employer’s request is reasonable in all the circumstances being 
settled by the Fair Work Commission through arbitration in accordance with 
clause 9.5 – Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act.

H.8.5 A period of leave under clause H.8 must start before [insert date 4 weeks from 
the Date of Operation] but may end after that date.

H.8.6 Clause H.8.1 does not prevent an employer and an employee from agreeing to 
the employee taking annual leave at any time.

H.8.7 An employer can only request that an employee take annual leave pursuant to 
this clause if the request is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 








[2020] FWCFB 2316

40

pandemic or Government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and 
to assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss of employment.

[138] The provision expressly contemplates that an employee may refuse an employer’s 
request but must not unreasonably do so.

[139] RAFFWU contends that there is no evidence that the proposed annual leave variation 
is necessary, in particular:

‘there is no evidence that employers in the industry have asked employees to take annual leave 
using the existing statutory framework and that such employees have refused to take leave. 
The Newlands Affidavit provides nothing more than generalised assertions unsupported by 
any empirical data.’85

[140] RAFFWU also submits the proposed variation is also not ‘fair’ in any event and 
contends that the proposed variation may lead to unfair outcomes for employees. For 
example, the proposed variation permits:

(a) an employer to press a vulnerable worker who is not entitled to Job Keeper, to 
reduce their annual leave accrual while replacing them with workers for whom 
an employer is funded with Job Keeper; and

(b) an employer to press any part�time worker, not entitled to Job Keeper, to 
reduce their annual leave accrual while replacing them with cheaper younger 
workers.

[141] Mr Newlands gives evidence in respect of this issue at [40] and [46] – [47] of his 
statement as follows:

‘In some cases, McDonald’s has requested employees at certain McOpCo Restaurants to 
consider volunteering to take annual leave in order to create capacity for employees from 
another McOpCo Restaurant that is more significantly impacted to perform some paid work in 
lieu of them. While some employees subsequently requested and were granted some annual 
leave, not all relevant employees have done so.
…
It has also become apparent that while many employees at McDonalds’ restaurants were 
willing to volunteer to take annual leave during school holidays, there is less desire amongst 
such employees to take leave now that school has recommenced.

The approach of asking employees to volunteer to take annual leave, transferring employees to 
another store or just continuing to let permanent employees work even if they are not 
genuinely needed will not be sufficient to avoid the need to terminate some permanent 
employees working at McOpCo Restaurants unless there is an imminent and significant 
improvement in the trading environment.’

                                               
85 Ibid at para [52].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

41

[142] Further, Mr Newlands’ evidence as to the need for the proposed annual leave clause is 
at [66] – [69] of his Statement:

‘There are many employees at McOpCo Restaurants and Franchisee Restaurants that have 
more than 2 weeks of annual leave.

I expect that McDonalds’ restaurants would utilise the proposed clause where they are unable 
to provide an employee with enough work due to the impact of COVID-19 as an alternate to 
terminating the employee’s employment by reason of redundancy. 

I expect that some restaurants may use the provisions to request employees to take accrued 
annual leave as a way of addressing the problem of having more permanent staff currently 
employed than is necessary or sustainable in the face of low levels of demand. Again, I expect 
that it would be used in such circumstances as a way of delaying making any decision to 
implement redundancies.’86

[143] We are satisfied of the necessity for a provision such as that in proposed clause H.8, 
however we propose to make one other change, to clause H.8.7, to bring the proposed term 
into line with clause H.7.4(ii), as follows:

‘An employer can only request that an employee take annual leave pursuant to this 
clause if the request is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic or
Government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and is necessary to 
assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss of employment’.

[144] Subsections 93(3) and (4) of the Act are relevant to this aspect of proposed Schedule 
H and provide as follows: 

‘Terms about requirements to take paid annual leave

(3) A modern award or enterprise agreement may include terms requiring an 
employee, or allowing for an employee to be required, to take paid annual 
leave in particular circumstances, but only if the requirement is reasonable. 

Terms about taking paid annual leave 

(4) A modern award or enterprise agreement may include terms otherwise 
dealing with the taking of paid annual leave.’ (emphasis added)

[145] Section 93 is part of the NES. Modern awards and the NES interact in different ways: 

                                               
86 Ibid at paras [66] – [69].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

42

 A modern award may include any terms that the award is expressly permitted to 
include by a provision of Part 2-2 (which deals with the NES) (ss.55(2) and 
136(1)(c)).87

 A modern award may include terms that: 

(i) are ancillary or incidental to the operation of an entitlement of an 
employee under the NES; or 

(ii) terms that supplement the NES (s.55(4)).

[146] Subject to the requirement to take leave being reasonable, a modern award term which 
provides that an employee can be required to take a period of annual leave is a term of the 
type contemplated by s.93(3) of the Act. The issue before us is whether the provisions we 
have mentioned are ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of s 93(3).

[147] The key elements of the clause are as follows: 

 An employer may make a request pursuant to clause H.8 subject to considering an 
employee’s personal circumstances.

 The request must be made in writing.
 The request must be made at least 72 hours before the date on which the leave 

would commence.

 The request may be made only if it is made for reasons attributable to the Pandemic 
or Government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and to assist the 
employer to avoid or minimise the loss of employment.

 An employer may only make a request under clause H.8.1 if it is reasonable in all 
the circumstances.

 An employer must consent to the arbitration of a dispute about whether the request 
is reasonable in all the circumstances.

 An employee is not required to consider the request unless the request would leave 
the employee with a balance of two weeks of accrued annual leave.

 A period of leave taken pursuant to this clause must commence within four weeks 
of the date of operation of Schedule H, however it may end after that date.

[148] In our view the term is a permitted term and is ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of 
s.93(3) and/or constitutes an ancillary or incidental term permitted by s.55(4). 

Clause H.9 – Close down 

[149] Clause H.9 – Close Down, provides as follows:

H.9 Close down 

                                               
87 Section 127 provides that the Regulations may permit modern awards to include terms that would or might otherwise be 

contrary to Part 2-2 or s.55, or prohibit modern awards from including terms that would or might otherwise be permitted 

by Part 2-2 or s.55. No such regulations have been made.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

43

H.9.1 Subject to clauses H.9.2, H.9.3 and H.9.4, an employer may:

(a) Require an employee to take annual leave as part of a close down of its 
operation or part of its operation by giving at least 48 hours’ notice or 
any shorter period of notice that may be agreed; and

(b) Where an employee has not accrued sufficient leave to cover part or all 
of the close down, the employee is to be allowed paid annual leave for 
the period for which they have accrued sufficient leave and given 
unpaid leave for the remainder of the closedown.

H.9.2 Clause H.9.1 applies if the employer has decided to close down for reasons 
attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic or Government initiatives to slow the 
transmission of COVID-19. 

H.9.3 An employer must provide an employee with written notice of any requirement to take 
annual leave or unpaid leave in accordance with this clause.

H.9.4 An employee is not required to take leave under clause H.9.1 unless:

(a) The employer has consulted with the employee about the requirement 
to take the leave; and 

(b) The employee is advised in writing that the employer consents to a 
dispute arising from the requirement being settled by the Fair Work 
Commission through arbitration in accordance with clause 9.5 –
Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act.

H.9.5 Clause H.9.1 only permits an employer to require an employee to take unpaid leave if 
it is in connection with a close down that commenced prior to [insert date 4 weeks 
from the Date of Operation] and the unpaid leave does not extend beyond [insert date 
8 weeks from the Date of Operation].

H.9.6 Where an employee is placed on unpaid leave pursuant to H.9.1(b), the period of 
unpaid leave will count as service for the purposes of relevant award and NES 
entitlements.

H.9.7 If an employee is required to take unpaid leave pursuant to clause H.9.1(b) and the 
employee makes a request to engage in: 

(a) reasonable secondary employment;

(b) training; 

(c) professional development;

during the period of unpaid leave, the employer must consider and not 
unreasonably refuse the request.

[150] Proposed Clause H.9.1 enables an employer to require an employee to take annual 
leave as part of a close down of its operations or part of its operations. Where an employee 
has not accrued sufficient annual leave to cover all or part of the period of the close down, the 
employee is to be allowed paid annual leave for the period for which they have accrued 
sufficient leave and given unpaid leave for the remainder of the close down.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

44

[151] The clause contains a number of safeguards and limitations.

[152] In its submission of 15 May 2020 Ai Group responded to an SDA proposal to extend 
the notice period in clause H.9.1(a) from 48 hours’ to one week. Ai Group submitted that a 
one week notice period was ‘impracticable in the event that Government restrictions limiting 
the operation of restaurants and cafes are implemented with limited notice’. At [6] of its 
submission, Ai Group states:

‘We are instructed in response to the SDA Draft Determination that the proposed close down 
clause may be sought to be relied upon in circumstances that require a rapid response, such as 
a confirmed diagnosis of a COVID-19 case requiring that the store/restaurant be closed for a 
‘deep clean’ and/or an investigation int relevant operational issues.’

[153] In response to the statement set out above, the SDA withdrew its support for this 
aspect of the Application, submitting that:

‘It is deeply concerning to the SDA to learn that the close-down provisions are also intended 
to respond to Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) incidents related to the COVID-19
pandemic, rather than solely downturns in trade resulting in a need to cease operations. The 
SDA has been campaigning alongside other unions for the introduction of a universal 
entitlement to paid pandemic leave for all workers, including casuals, to ensure that workers 
are not financially disadvantaged due to exposure to the virus. Utilisation of the close-down 
clause in the circumstances identified by the Ai Group would not be reasonable or 
appropriate.’88

[154] Mr Newlands’ evidence as to the need for the close down clause is at [70] – [71] of his 
Statement:

‘I expect that McDonalds’ restaurants would utilise the proposed clause where it considers it 
necessary to close down a restaurant or part of a restaurant due to a substantial downturn in 
sales and where alternate work cannot be found for the employee.

The proposed clause would enable the restaurant to place full-time and part-time employees 
on annual leave or unpaid leave and maintain the employment relationship with them rather 
than terminating the employees’ employment for reason of redundancy.’89 (emphasis added)

[155] Three things may be said about this aspect of Mr Newlands’ evidence. The first is that 
Mr Newlands’ opinion as to the circumstances in which McDonald’s restaurants may utilise 
the clause is mere speculation and is unsupported by any evidence from a particular 
McDonald’s outlet. The second point is that Mr Newlands refers to a close down being 
necessary ‘due to a substantial downturn in sales’. No particularity is provided as to the 
likelihood of such an eventuality; indeed, the likelihood may be said to be diminishing as it is 
intended that the COVID-19 restrictions be progressively lifted. The final point to note is that 
if a close down proves necessary, and s.524 is not available, an employer may request that an 
employee take paid annual leave pursuant to clause H.8.

                                               
88 SDA submission 15 May 2020 at para. [4]
89 Ibid at paras [70] – [71].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

45

[156] RAFFWU submits that the proposed stand-down clause is ‘entirely unnecessary’ and 
advances three broad points in this regard:

1. The Act provides a scheme for stand downs that adequately covers the current 
situation, noting that:

 Ai Group has advanced no evidence of the specific needs underpinning the 
proposed variation and no evidence of why s 524 falls short of meeting that 
need; and

 Ai Group alleges ‘significant complexity’ in the operation of s.524 but fails to 
identify what that complexity is.

2. The ‘true effect’ of the proposed variation is to expand the circumstances in 
which an employer can close down their operations and force its employees to 
reduce their annual leave accruals during that period;

3. There is ‘not a shred of evidence to suggest that the variation is necessary to 
achieve the modern awards objective’:

Moreover, the evidence before the Commission is that stores are reopening. There is 
no evidence at all that any employers are presently faced with a decision about 
whether to shut down or not.90

[157] In our view, the proposed ‘Close-Down’ clause lacks merit, for four reasons.

[158] First, as mentioned earlier, the change in the number of jobs in the Accommodation
and food services sector has been relatively stable since the week ending 11 April and total 
wages have been stable since the week ending 4 April (see Chart 2 on page 17). This suggests 
that much of the initial impact of COVID-19 may have run its course in this sector.

[159] Second, Mr Newlands’ evidence suggests that the trend in respect of McDonalds’ 
operation is towards the reopening of restaurants rather than their closure. At [13](b) of his 
statement he says:

‘Customers of food court restaurants have not had access to a dine-in area.  68 restaurants 
were closed as at 30 April 2020. McDonald’s is actively working to re-open restaurants where 
we can, but where this has occurred there are different trading hours, reduced service offerings 
(i.e. limited menus) and reduced staff levels. We have opened 28 of the previously closed 
restaurants but have not made a decision about when or how many of the additional stores will 
be reopened in the near future.’ (emphasis added)

[160] Third, as pointed out by Ms Kelly of counsel on behalf of RAFFWU, we know 
nothing of the circumstances of the 40 McDonalds restaurants that have closed. We do not 

                                               
90 RAFFWU submission 14 May at para [58].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

46

know when they were closed; whether they are eligible for the JobKeeper Scheme; or whether 
they are part of a McOpCo or a larger Franchise cohort. In short, there is a lack of probative 
evidence about the enterprises which may utilise the provision – noting that the proposed term 
provides that the proposed clause would apply to close downs that commenced 4 weeks prior 
to the operation of the clause.

[161] Finally, Ai Group failed to mount a convincing case in support of its contention that 
s.524 was insufficient to meet the needs of employers covered by the Fast Food Award. Ai 
Group contended that s.524 was attended with ‘significant complexity’; but failed to identify 
what that complexity was and how it impacted on the employers covered by the Fast Food 
Award.

[162] Further, Ai Group’s submission of 15 May 2020 identifies one circumstance in which 
the proposed clause may be sought to be relied upon – ‘a confirmed diagnosis of a COVID-19 
case requiring that the store/restaurant be closed for a ‘deep clean’ and/or investigation into 
relevant operational issues’.91 The example provided does not advance Ai Group’s case, 
indeed it sets it back. The example provided would clearly permit a stand down under s.524 
which provides:

524  Employer may stand down employees in certain circumstances

(1) An employer may, under this subsection, stand down an employee during a 
period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of one of the 
following circumstances …

(c) a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be 
held responsible.

[163] As we have said, in our view the proposed Close down term lacks merit. If the Fast 
Food Award was varied in the manner proposed by Ai Group it would not provide a ‘fair and 
relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’. In short, such a variation would not be 
fair to the employees covered by the Award. We accept that the variation proposed would 
benefit business and that the consideration in s.134(1)(f) may be said to weigh in favour of the 
proposal. But the other s.134(1) considerations are either neutral or, in the case of s.134(1)(a), 
weigh against the variation proposed. We reject this aspect of Ai Group’s claim.

6. Consideration

[164] The Commission may make a determination varying a modern award if the 
Commission is satisfied the determination is necessary to achieve the modern awards 
objective. The modern awards objective is in s.134 of the Act and provides as follows:

‘What is the modern awards objective?

                                               
91 Ai Group submission 15 May 2020 submission at para [6]








[2020] FWCFB 2316

47

134(1) The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment 
Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into 
account:

(a) relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and

(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining; and

(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; 
and

(d) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and 
productive performance of work; and

(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for:

(i) employees working overtime; or

(ii) employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or

(iii) employees working on weekends or public holidays; or

(iv) employees working shifts; and

(e) the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and

(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including 
on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and

(g) the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern 
award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and

(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, 
inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national 
economy.’

This is the modern awards objective.

When does the modern awards objective apply?

(2) The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the 
FWC’s modern award powers, which are:

(a) the FWC’s functions or powers under this Part; and

(b) the FWC’s functions or powers under Part 2-6, so far as they relate to 
modern award minimum wages.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

48

Note: The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable 
provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum 
wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).’

[165] The modern awards objective is to ‘ensure that modern awards, together with the 
National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and 
conditions’, taking into account the particular considerations identified in ss.134(1)(a)–(h) 
(the s.134 considerations).

[166] The modern awards objective is very broadly expressed.92 It is a composite expression 
which requires that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards (NES), 
provide ‘a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’, taking into account 
the matters in ss.134(1)(a)–(h).93 Fairness in this context is to be assessed from the 
perspective of the employees and employers covered by the modern award in question.94

[167] The obligation to take into account the s.134 considerations means that each of these 
matters, insofar as they are relevant, must be treated as a matter of significance in the 
decision-making process.95 No particular primacy is attached to any of the s.134 
considerations96 and not all of the matters identified will necessarily be relevant in the context 
of a particular proposal to vary a modern award.

[168] It is not necessary to make a finding that the award fails to satisfy one or more of the 
s.134 considerations as a prerequisite to the variation of a modern award.97 Generally 
speaking, the s.134 considerations do not set a particular standard against which a modern 
award can be evaluated; many of them may be characterised as broad social objectives.98 In 
giving effect to the modern awards objective the Commission is performing an evaluative 
function taking into account the matters in s.134(1)(a)–(h) and assessing the qualities of the 
safety net by reference to the statutory criteria of fairness and relevance.

[169] Section 138 of the Act emphasises the importance of the modern awards objective:

‘Section 138 Achieving the modern awards objective

A modern award may include terms that it is permitted to include, and must include terms that 
it is required to include, only to the extent necessary to achieve the modern awards objective 
and (to the extent applicable) the minimum wages objective.’

                                               
92 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No 2) (2012) 205 FCR 227 at [35]
93 (2017) 265 IR 1 at [128]; Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] 

FCAFC 161 at [41]–[44]
94 [2018] FWCFB 3500 at [21]-[24]
95 Edwards v Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561 at [5]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] 

FCA 1121 at [81]-[84]; National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [56]
96 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v The Australian Industry Group [2017] FCAFC 161 at [33]
97 National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [105]-[106]
98 See National Retail Association v Fair Work Commission (2014) 225 FCR 154 at [109]-[110]; albeit the Court was 

considering a different statutory context, this observation is applicable to the Commission’s task in the Review






http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2018fwcfb3500.htm


[2020] FWCFB 2316

49

[170] What is ‘necessary’ to achieve the modern awards objective in a particular case is a 
value judgment, taking into account the s.134 considerations to the extent that they are 
relevant having regard to the context, including the circumstances pertaining to the particular 
modern award, the terms of any proposed variation and the submissions and evidence.99

[171] For the reasons set out in Section 5 we have rejected Ai Group’s proposed Close down 
term and we propose amending the balance of the proposed schedule H in the manner we 
have described (the amended Schedule H). We now turn to consider whether we should vary 
the Fast Food Award to insert the amended Schedule H.

[172] As we have mentioned, before varying a modern award the Commission must be 
satisfied that if the modern award is varied in the manner proposed then it would only include
terms necessary to achieve the modern awards objective. The issue in contention is if the Fast 
Food Award was varied as proposed would it provide a ‘fair and relevant minimum safety 
net’? Fairness in this context is to be assessed from the perspective of the employees and 
employers covered by the modern award in question. We now turn to the s.134 
considerations.

[173] In our view the considerations in s 134(e) and (g) were not relevant. We deal with the 
other considerations below.

s. 134(1)(a): relative living standards and the needs of the low paid

[174] A threshold of two-thirds of median full-time wages provides ‘a suitable and 
operational benchmark for identifying who is low paid’,100 within the meaning of s.134(1)(a).

[175] The most recent data for median earnings is for August 2019 from the ABS 
Characteristics of Employment (CoE) survey. Data on median earnings are also available 
from the Survey of Employee Earnings and Hours (EEH) for May 2018. On the basis of the 
data from the CoE survey for August 2019, two-thirds of median weekly earnings for full-
time employees is $920.00. Data on median weekly full-time earnings are also available from 
the EEH survey for May 2018, and two-thirds of median earnings is equal to $973.33.

[176] Using the two-thirds of median full-time wages as the benchmark, award reliant Fast 
Food employees are ‘low paid’ within the meaning of s.134(1)(a) (see Chart 1 at [56] above).

[177] RAFFWU submits101 that the proposed variation:

‘has a material detriment for already low paid workers. For part-time workers, it reduces their 
minimum hours of work. It creates substantial insecurity of income. It has the potential to 

                                               
99 See generally: Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v National Retail Association (No.2) (2012) 205 FCR 

227
100 [2017] FWCFB 1001 at [166].
101 RAFFWU submission at para [59]






http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb1001.htm


[2020] FWCFB 2316

50

greatly increase childcare costs, because part-time workers will be forced to make such 
arrangements to cover a vast window of ‘availability’ for hours that might never eventuate. It 
will reduce their income by removing their rights to overtime. The proposed variation will also 
operate to reduce the income of casual employees by depriving them of the right to casual 
loading’.

[178] Ai Group relies on the Commission’s observations in its recent decision concerning 
the Clerks—Private Sector Award 2010:

[53] … employers and employees face an invidious choice and the retention of as 
many employees as possible in employment, albeit on reduced hours, is plainly a 
priority.102

[179] Ai Group submits103 that:

‘It is also relevant that the clause seeks to mitigate the potential impact of the proposed 
variations in various ways.’

[180] We accept that the proposed variation may result in low paid employees receiving less 
pay than they would for the same hours under the current terms of the award. It is axiomatic 
that such a reduction in pay will mean that they are less able to meet their needs. But, the 
retention of as many employees as possible in employment, albeit receiving less pay for the 
hours they work than they would under the current terms of the award, is an important 
countervailing consideration. It is also important to note that the flexibilities in the proposed 
variation are subject to a number of safeguards, as discussed earlier in our decision.

[181] We accept that this consideration weighs against the proposed variation.

s.134(1)(b) the need to encourage collective bargaining

[182] Ai Group contends that the proposed variation ‘may encourage enterprise bargaining’. 
The submission advanced in support of this contention was entirely speculative. 

[183] Section 134(1)(b) speaks of ‘the need to encourage collective bargaining’. We are not 
persuaded that varying the Fast Food Award in the manner proposed would necessarily
encourage enterprise bargaining generally; but the shorter duration of the schedule’s 
operation may encourage McDonald’s at least to engage in collective bargaining (at discussed 
earlier at [109] – [110] above). On balance we think this consideration is neutral.

s. 134(1)(c) the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce 
participation

[184] Ai Group submits that:

                                               
102 [2020] FWCFB 1690.
103 Ai Group submission 13 May 2020 at [90].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

51

‘The measures proposed in Schedule H (particularly clause H.7) may increase workforce 
participation (s.134(1)(c)). To the extent that the proposed variations do not increase 
workforce participation relative to the level of workforce participation prior to the Pandemic, 
it will in our submission enable the retention of “as many employees in employment as 
practicable in the current crisis”.104 This is, in our submission, a consideration weighing in 
favour of the grant of the proposed variation.’105

[185] RAFFWU submits that the proposed variation:

‘does nothing to promote social inclusion. The proposed variation will not increase workforce 
participation. It will only increase insecurity and fear in existing workforce participation. In 
that sense, the clause is destructive of social inclusion. It is inimical to the promotion of it.’106

[186] This consideration is directed at obtaining employment. The variation proposed will 
facilitate the objective of retaining employees in employment in the current circumstances. 
The flexibilities in schedule H are only accessible if, among other things, they are ‘necessary 
to assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss of employment’. This consideration 
weighs in favour of the variation.

s. 134(1)(d) and (f) the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient 
and productive performance of work and the likely impact of any exercise of modern 
award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the 
regulatory burden.

[187] RAFFWU contends the proposed variation does not promote flexible work practices 
and that this is ‘evident from the findings of the Commission’ in earlier proceedings involving 
the Fast Food Award (see [2019] FWCFB 272). Those earlier proceedings involved a claim 
by Ai Group to insert a ‘Flexible Part time clause’ into the Award. As we have mentioned 
earlier, the two claims are different, in a number of important respects. Further, in our earlier 
decision we accepted that:

‘…if the claim was granted, it would have a positive impact on business and that this is a 
consideration which weighs in favour of varying the award in the manner proposed.’107

[188] We make the same finding in the present matter. The proposed variation will promote 
flexibility. This is a factor which weighs in favour of making the variation sought. 

s.134(1)(da) the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working 
overtime; or employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or 
employees working on weekends or public holidays; or employees working shifts

                                               
104 Application to vary the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 [2020] FWCFB 1690 at [55].
105 Ai Group submission 13 May 2020 at [92] – [93].
106 RAFFWU submission 15 May 2020 at [61]
107 [2019] FWCFB 272 at [133].








[2020] FWCFB 2316

52

[189] Section 134(1)(da) was given detailed consideration in the Penalty Rates Case.108 We 
generally adopt those observations and only propose to highlight two matters.

 s.134(1)(da) speaks of the ‘need to provide additional remuneration’ for 
employees performing work in the circumstances mentioned in s.134(1)(da)(i), 
(ii), (iii) and (iv). The expression ‘additional remuneration’ in this context means 
remuneration in addition to what employees would receive for working what are 
normally characterised as ‘ordinary hours’, that is reasonably predictable hours 
worked Monday to Friday within the ‘spread of hours’ prescribed in the relevant 
modern award. Such ‘additional remuneration’ could be provided by means of a 
penalty rate or loading paid in respect of hours worked at particular times.

 the expression ‘the need for additional remuneration’ must be construed in 
context, and the context tells against the proposition that s.134(1)(da) requires
additional remuneration be provided for working in the identified circumstances.
Section s.134(1)(da) is a relevant consideration, it is not a statutory directive that 
additional remuneration must be paid to employees working in the 
circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 134(1)(da)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv); rather, 
s.134(1)(da) is a consideration which we are required to take into account. 

[190] Ai Group contends that s.134(1)(da) is a neutral consideration.

[191] RAFFWU submits that the proposed variation ‘actively undermines these 
considerations. It strips both part-time and casual employees of the penalties that attach to 
overtime and unsocial, irregular and unpredictable hours’.109

[192] We accept that this consideration weighs against the variation proposed. 

s.134(1)(f) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, 
including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden

[193] Ai Group submits that the proposed variation will:

‘…have a ‘positive impact on business (s.134(1)(f)).110 It will provide employers with essential 
flexibilities that are necessary to enable them to better ‘weather the storm’. Ensuring the 
ongoing viability of employers beyond the Pandemic is vital to ensuring that employees retain 
employment opportunities’.111

[194] We are satisfied that this consideration weighs in favour of the variation proposed.

                                               
108 [2017] FWCFB 1001 at [184]-[203].
109 RAFFWU submission 15 May 2020 at [63]
110 Application to vary the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 [2020] FWCFB 1690 at [56].
111 Ai Group submission 15 May 2020 at [97]








[2020] FWCFB 2316

53

s.134(1)(h) the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment 
growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national 
economy.

[195] Ai Group submits that ‘the variation proposed will ultimately have a positive impact 
on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of 
the national economy’.112 The Minister advances a similar submission.

[196] We are not persuaded that s.134(1)(h) is relevant in the current context. The 
consideration deals with the impact of a variation on the national economy and there is 
insufficient evidence to establish that the proposed variation would advance this 
consideration.

7. Conclusion

[197] We note that the terms in Schedule H may be included in a modern award pursuant to 
ss.136(1)(a) and (c), and ss.139(1)(a), (b), (c), (h) and (j) of the Act.

[198] We are satisfied that the variation proposed is necessary to achieve the modern awards 
objective (s.157) and in so deciding we have taken into account the considerations in 
s.134(1)(a) to (h) insofar as they are relevant. Further, once varied the Fast Food Award will 
only include terms to the extent necessary to achieve the modern awards objective (s.138).

[199] For the reasons set out above we propose to vary the Fast Food Award in the manner 
set out at Attachment A. The determination will come into operation on 19 May 2020. As 
required by s.165(3) the determination does not take effect in relation to a particular employee 
until the start of the employee’s first full pay period that starts on or after the day the 
determination comes into operation.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

PR718780

Appearances:

Ms R. Bhatt and Mr B. Ferguson for Ai Group

Mr D. Williams of Counsel with Ms J. Kuzma for the Commonwealth Minister for Industrial 
Relations 

                                               
112 Ai Group submission 15 May 2020 at [99]








[2020] FWCFB 2316

54

Mr Warren Friend of Counsel, with Mr D. Macken, Mr G. van Rensburg and Ms S. Burnley
for SDA

Ms S. Kelly of Counsel, with Mr J. Cullinan with and Mr M. Cornthwaite for RAFFWU

Ms S. Ismail for Australian Council of Trade Unions

Hearing details:

Melbourne
2020
15 May








55

Fair Work Act 2009 
s.157 – Application to vary modern awards if necessary to achieve modern awards objective

The Australian Industry Group
(AM2020/20)

FAST FOOD INDUSTRY AWARD 2010
[MA000003]

Fast food industry

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON
COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2020

Application to vary the Fast Food Industry Award 2010.

A. Further to the decision [[2020] FWCFB 2316] issued by the Full Bench on 19 May 
2020, the above award is varied as follows:

1. By inserting the following definition in clause 3.1 in alphabetical order:

Jobkeeper payment means a jobkeeper payment payable to an entity under 
section 14 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) 
Rules 2020

2. By inserting Schedule H as follows:

Schedule H—Award flexibility during the COVID-19 Pandemic

H.1 The provisions of Schedule H are aimed at preserving the ongoing viability of 
businesses and preserving jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic and not to set any 
precedent in relation to award entitlements after its expiry date.

H.2 Schedule H operates from 19 May 2020 until 31 July 2020.

H.3 Schedule H applies to:

H.3.1employers who do not qualify for Jobkeeper payments and their employees; 
and

Attachment A

DETERMINATION








[2020] FWCFB 2316

56

H.3.2employees who do not qualify for Jobkeeper payments and their employers in 
relation to those employees.

H.4 If an employer or employee becomes entitled to Jobkeeper payments for an 
employee, the terms of Schedule H will not apply in relation to that employer and 
that employee.

H.5 Schedule H is intended to assist in the continuing employment of employees.

H.6 During the operation of Schedule H, the following provisions apply.

H.7 Flexible part-time employment

While Schedule H is in operation and subject to written agreement between an 
employee and their employer in accordance with clause H.7.2, the following 
provisions will, in relation to that employee, operate instead of clause 12 of the 
award until 31 July 2020:

H.7.1A part time employee is an employee who:

(a) Works at least 8 but less than 38 hours per week;

(b) Has reasonably predictable hours of work; and

(c) Receives on a pro-rata basis, equivalent pay and conditions to those of 
full-time employees.

H.7.2The employer and the part-time employee will agree in writing upon:

(a) The number of hours of work which are guaranteed to be provided and 
paid to the employee each week or, where the employer operates a roster, 
the number of hours of work which are guaranteed to be provided and 
paid to the employee over the roster cycle (the guaranteed minimum 
hours); and

(b) The days of the week, and the periods in each of those days, when the 
employee will be available to work the guaranteed minimum hours (the 
employee’s agreed availability).

H.7.3The employer and the employee must have genuinely made the agreement 
mentioned in clause H.7.2 without coercion or duress.

H.7.4An agreement made under clause H.7.2 is not valid unless: 

(a) the employee is also advised in writing that the employer consents to a 
dispute about the operation of this clause H.7 being settled by the Fair 








[2020] FWCFB 2316

57

Work Commission through arbitration in accordance with clause 9.5—
Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act; and

(b) the agreement is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 
pandemic or Government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-
19 and is necessary to assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss 
of employment.

H.7.5The employee must not be rostered to work less than 3 consecutive hours in 
any shift.

H.7.6The guaranteed minimum hours shall not be less than 8 hours per week.

H.7.7Any change to the guaranteed minimum hours may only occur with written 
consent of the part-time employee.

H.7.8An employee may be offered ordinary hours in addition to the guaranteed 
minimum hours (additional hours) within the employee’s agreed availability. 
The employee may agree to work those additional hours provided that:

(a) The additional hours are offered in accordance with clause 25—Hours of 
work and clause 26—Overtime;

(b) The employee may not be rostered for work outside of the employee’s 
agreed availability;

(c) agreed additional hours are paid at ordinary rates (including any 
applicable penalties payable for working ordinary hours at the relevant 
times);

(d) An employee will accrue entitlements such as annual leave and 
personal/carer’s leave on agreed additional hours worked;

(e) The agreement to work additional hours may be withdrawn by a part-
time employee with 14 days written notice;

(f) The employee can refuse to work additional hours when offered on any 
occasion;

(g) Additional hours worked in accordance with this clause are not overtime; 
and

(h) Where there is a requirement to work overtime in accordance with clause 
26, overtime rates will apply.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

58

H.7.9A part-time employee who immediately prior to the 19 May 2020 has a written 
agreement with their employer for a regular pattern of hours is entitled to 
continue to be rostered in accordance with that agreement, unless that 
agreement is replaced by a new written agreement made in accordance with 
clause H.7.2. If a part-time employee agrees to such a change, they shall, when 
Schedule H ceases operation, revert to the previously agreed regular pattern of 
hours.

H.7.10 If an employee is first employed as a part-time employee during the 
operation of Schedule H, their employment will be on a casual basis when 
Schedule H ceases operation unless:

(a) the employer and employee agree that the employee will be engaged on a 
part-time basis beyond this period, and

(b) the employer and employee reach agreement in writing on the matters 
identified in with clause 12.

H.8 Annual leave

H.8.1Subject to clause H.8.3 and H.8.7 and despite clauses 28.6, 28.7 and 28.8 
(Annual leave), an employer may, subject to considering an employee’s 
personal circumstances, request the employee in writing to take paid annual 
leave. Such a request must be made a minimum of 72 hours before the date on 
which the annual leave is to commence.

H.8.2If the employer gives the employee a request to take paid annual leave, and 
complying with the request will not result in the employee having a balance of 
paid annual leave of fewer than 2 weeks, the employee must consider the 
request and must not unreasonably refuse the request.

H.8.3An employer may only make a request under clause H.8.1 where it is 
reasonable in all the circumstances.

H.8.4An employee is not required to take leave under clause H.8 unless the 
employee is advised in writing that the employer consents to a dispute about 
whether the employer’s request is reasonable in all the circumstances being 
settled by the Fair Work Commission through arbitration in accordance with 
clause 9.5—Dispute Resolution and section 739(4) of the Act.

H.8.5A period of leave under clause H.8 must start before 16 June 2020 but may end 
after that date.

H.8.6Clause H.8.1 does not prevent an employer and an employee from agreeing to 
the employee taking annual leave at any time.








[2020] FWCFB 2316

59

H.8.7An employer can only request that an employee take annual leave pursuant to 
this clause if the request is made for reasons attributable to the COVID-19 
pandemic or Government initiatives to slow the transmission of COVID-19 and 
is necessary to assist the employer to avoid or minimise the loss of 
employment.

H.9 Dispute resolution

Any dispute regarding the operation of Schedule H may be referred to the Fair Work 
Commission in accordance with clause 9—Dispute resolution.

NOTE 1: An employee covered by this award who is entitled to the benefit of the safeguards 
in clauses H.7 and H.8 has a workplace right under section 341(1)(a) of the Act.

NOTE 2: Under section 340(1) of the Act, an employer must not take adverse action against 
an employee because the employee has a workplace right, has or has not exercised a 
workplace right, or proposes or does not propose to exercise a workplace right, or to prevent 
the employee exercising a workplace right. Under section 342(1) of the Act, an employer 
takes adverse action against an employee if the employer dismisses the employee, injures the 
employee in his or her employment, alters the position of the employee to the employee’s 
prejudice, or discriminates between the employee and other employees of the employer.

NOTE 3: Under section 343(1) of the Act, a person must not organise or take, or threaten to 
organise or take, action against another person with intent to coerce the person to exercise or 
not exercise, or propose to exercise or not exercise, a workplace right, or to exercise or 
propose to exercise a workplace right in a particular way.

3. By updating the table of contents and cross-references accordingly.

B. This determination comes into operation on 19 May 2020. In accordance with s.165(3) 
of the Fair Work Act 2009 this determination does not take effect until the start of the 
first full pay period that starts on or after 19 May 2020.

PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer






http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028
http://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028

Cases cited by this decision: