McDonald’s is facing a $250 million wage theft action after a group representing employees said they were denied their legally mandated paid breaks.
The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) filed proceedings in Federal Court this week demanding compensation for 250,000 present and past fast food employees.
If employees work four hours or more, they are entitled to a paid ten-minute break, and two breaks if they work more than nine hours.
However, the SDA claims that employees at hundreds of McDonald’s locations throughout Australia were not given their scheduled breaks.
According to the union, employees were not informed of their rights and were instructed that if they wanted their paid break, they couldn’t stop working to grab a drink or use the restroom.
Others were reportedly informed they could substitute a complimentary soft drink for their break.
Gerard Dwyer, national secretary of the SDA, said the lawsuit would send a message that’systematic exploitation’ of young employees would not be permitted.
McDonald’s requires uniformity across the board. They make certain that each restaurant can provide two beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun,’ he said.
‘It’s just not credible that these breaks were not deliberately refused.’
If the claim is successful, it will be one of the largest in Australia.
Josh Peak, Secretary of the South Australian SDA Branch, said that youthful employees must be safeguarded.
‘It’s absolutely awful behavior to deceive young people into believing they don’t have the right to go to the bathroom if they use their paid entitlements,’ he said on ABC Radio Adelaide Breakfast.
‘Workers were never given their paid 10-minute rest break, and when they did ask for one, they were told, “we don’t do that here because you can go to the bathroom anytime you want,’ which is utterly ridiculous.’
Isabelle, who worked at a McDonald’s in Adelaide’s CBD, claimed she was never granted a paid drink break throughout her five years there.
Instead, she said that she could have drinks breaks during her shift, but that they were just a minute long and that she had to return to work right after.
‘I’d spoken to my superiors about it, and they simply told us that we didn’t receive them, that they opted to do something else, that it was legal, and that everything was great,’ she said.
She went on to say that bosses were often ‘angry’ with employees who wanted to use the restroom or take a drink.
‘I remember thinking, what else do I need?’ ‘Do I need to drink more or go to the toilet more — and then you just decide from there,’ she said.
McDonald’s has disputed the charges and has said that it would defend the suit.
‘McDonald’s thinks their outlets conformed with relevant legislation, provided workers with rest periods, and were consistent with historical working practices,’ according to a spokeswoman.
‘The SDA has been aware of such agreements for many years. Throughout previous enterprise negotiation sessions for new industrial agreements, the SDA has not contested or highlighted the way of taking breaks as a source of concern.
‘We are well aware of our duties under relevant labour regulations, such as the previous enterprise agreement and the Fast Food Industry Award, and we continue to work closely with our restaurants to ensure workers get the necessary workplace rights and remuneration.’
‘We strongly respect our personnel and the significant contribution they make to the company’s success.’