Selection of Articles About Cutting of Wages in Retail and Fast Food
[i] Good Weekend, Fairfax, September 2016 (http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2016/shopped-out/)
[ii] SDA submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission “Abortion Law” Inquiry, 2007
[iii] SDA submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in relation to the Gay Marriage Bill, 2012
[iv] For example, see various Rules of the Australian Labor Party
[v] For example, see various Domino’s, KFC and other enterprise agreements
[vi] For example, see McDonald’s and other enterprise agreements
[vii] For example, see McDonald’s and other enterprise agreements
[viii] See submissions of RAFFWU to various Inquiries of Senate Committees in 2017 including https://www.dropbox.com/s/degsuc700ak2mor/sub208.pdf?dl=0
[ix] Hart v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd and Bi-Lo Pty Limited  FWCFB 2887
[x] See transcript of Hearing in Hart v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd and Bi-Lo Pty Limited  FWCFB 2887 and evidence of Matthew Galbraith, SDA National Industrial Officer:
Did you explain to the employees that some of them would earn less than the statutory award minimum?
—I don’t believe that was explained, no.
Did the SDA consider that it wasn’t relevant for employees to know that?
—I don’t think it’s that they considered that it wasn’t relevant. I think they considered that it was a deal that was generally beneficial to the majority of employees that worked for Coles.
Do you agree that a worker earning, for example, 13.8 percent less under the agreement than the award might consider it a relevant factor when deciding whether to cast a vote in favour or against the agreement?
—They might, yes.
You accept that by failing to draw it to their attention, workers may not have, in fact, made an informed decision about whether they wanted to approve the agreement or not?
—If they had that information, they may have voted differently.
Was the SDA aware at the time the agreement went out to vote that some employees would earn less than the award minimum?
—The SDA’s aware that the employees who work predominantly penalty rate times without the compensation of higher base rates of those hours during the week could potentially be worse off.
The SDA was aware of that at the time that the agreement was put out to vote, that’s correct?
—I imagine so.
The SDA was aware of that at the time that it filed its F18 statutory declaration in support of the agreement?
The SDA was aware that a factor that may have changed the way in which employees decided to cast their vote was withheld from those employees?
—I wouldn’t describe it as withheld. We felt the agreement was a good agreement that benefitted the vast majority of its employees.
But you accept the employees weren’t told?
—The employees weren’t told.
The Tribunal wasn’t told was it?
—I don’t believe so.
Have you seen the evidence of Mr Cecchini?
—Yes, I have. I’ve read it once, not in great detail.
If I could ask that you be given a copy of that report. When I say a copy of the report, I’m referring, Commissioner, to BC5.
If I can ask you to go page 19 of that document and that is findings in relation to a cleaner employed in Benalla. Have you got that?
—Yes, I’ve got it.
You see on the right hand side Mr Cecchini’s analysis, on the left you’ll see Mr Cullinan’s?
Mr Cecchini’s representation of Mr Cullinan’s. This employee, when we look at non-contingent benefits, so this is wages and penalties and allowances, would earn under the award $24,117 and under the agreement earns $21,769. Was this a good deal for the cleaner at Benalla?
—On the basis of the non-contingent benefits, I would say no.
After we factor in the contingent on choice benefits, the worker is still 8.9 percent worse off. At that point, is this a good deal for the Benalla cleaner?
—The Benalla cleaner is still behind.
I’m not asking whether they’re behind. Your evidence is that this is a good deal for workers. Is your evidence that this is a good deal for the Benalla cleaner?
—Not for the Benalla cleaner, no.
After we take into account contingent on circumstance, so this is someone who is off work for 26 weeks with an injury, taking 11 days carer’s leave, three days compassionate leave, three days emergency services leave, three days natural disaster leave, even after we factor in all of those contingencies on circumstances, this person is notionally $121 better off. At that point, does the SDA maintain that this is a good deal for the Benalla cleaner?
—I don’t think it’s a good deal for the Benalla cleaner.
[xi] See http://www.walkleys.com/walkleys-winners/ben-schneiders-royce-millar-and-nick-toscano/