Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Limited (Stay Application)
Citation: [2023] FCA 1210
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 300000
What happened
This proceeding addresses procedural management of a class action and concurrent representative actions concerning McDonald's workers. The class action (Elliott-Carde and Dunlop v McDonald's Australia Limited) alleges approximately 300,000 to 350,000 current and former workers of McDonald's and franchisees were not provided ten-minute rest breaks in breach of a 2013 enterprise agreement and a 2010 award. Concurrently, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association brought 16 representative proceedings under ss 539-540 of the Fair Work Act against McDonald's and franchisees involving substantially overlapping workers.
What was decided
Justice Lee dismissed the SDA's application to stay the class action. The court rejected the binary choice between proceeding with only the class action or only the SDA's representative actions. Instead, the court proposed a joint trial model managing all proceedings together to determine common questions affecting all workers, followed by determination of representative sample claims for statutory compensation. This approach ensures all potentially liable parties (including all franchisees) appear and are bound by the decision on common issues, while preserving the benefits of the class action regime.
What it means for employers
When both class actions and union representative proceedings overlap, courts will seek to manage them jointly to avoid duplication and ensure efficient resolution. Employers and franchisees should cooperate in managing the proceedings rather than seeking to delay or stay them. A single determination of common questions binding all parties may lead to faster resolution and settlement.
What it means for employees
Employees can pursue claims through both class action and representative proceedings simultaneously. Courts will manage these to prevent duplicity. Individual workers are protected by either vehicle, and courts will adopt procedures to ensure fair representation and proportionate assessment of claims across large groups of affected workers.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca1210Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →