Ardeen Pty Ltd v Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Citation: [2026] FCAFC 93
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 4500
What happened
Ardeen Pty Ltd (McDonald's franchisees) and two related companies sought judicial review of a Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision granting a 'supported bargaining authorisation' to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). This authorisation compelled them and their approximately 4,500 employees to bargain together for a multi-enterprise agreement. The FWC’s decision meant they couldn't negotiate separate enterprise agreements. The applicants argued the FWC misconstrued legislation and failed to consider relevant factors like competitive disadvantages.
What was decided
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review. The court found the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission did not commit a jurisdictional error in granting the supported bargaining authorisation. While acknowledging the significant impact on the Licensees' ability to negotiate independently, the court upheld the FWC’s decision and refused to grant orders quashing it or compelling reconsideration. The originating application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware of the potential for compulsory collective bargaining through supported bargaining authorisations under the Fair Work Act. These authorisations can significantly restrict an employer's ability to negotiate enterprise agreements independently and may force them into multi-enterprise bargaining arrangements, even if they prefer not to.
What it means for employees
Employees covered by a supported bargaining authorisation are obligated to participate in collective bargaining processes, potentially impacting their individual agreement terms. They should understand the implications of such authorisations on their workplace conditions and rights.
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/full/2026/2026fcafc0093Want 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 →