Verrocchi, Marcello & Patricia Colasante & Mario Verrocchi and Others v Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (006N)
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 77
What happened
The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) applied for a single interest employer authorisation concerning six Chemist Warehouse pharmacy stores in South Australia owned by Philip Colasante Pharmacies Pty Ltd & Pharmec Pty Ltd and Others. This authorisation would allow the SDA to bargain for an enterprise agreement covering these pharmacies and their employees. A Deputy President initially granted the authorisation, but the employers appealed this decision, arguing that the Commission wasn't properly satisfied a majority of employees wanted to bargain for the agreement.
What was decided
The Full Bench dismissed the appeal. The employers argued the Deputy President failed to consider whether employees were informed about the consequences of the authorisation and incorrectly interpreted 'the agreement'. The Full Bench found no error in the Deputy President’s decision, stating they could be satisfied the requirement in s 249(1B)(d) was met despite changes to the proposed coverage of the agreement. Permission to appeal was not granted.
What it means for employers
Employers seeking single interest employer authorisations need to ensure employees are fully informed about the implications of such an authorisation. They should also be prepared to address arguments regarding the definition and scope of the 'agreement' being sought, particularly if there have been changes during the application process.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand the consequences of a single interest employer authorisation before petitions are signed or agreements are considered. This includes understanding limitations on bargaining for alternative agreements while the authorisation is in effect.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwcfb77.pdfWant 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 →