Courts Back Union Enforcement as Woolworths Penalised for Enterprise Agreement Breaches

A series of recent penalty decisions against Woolworths have highlighted a message that courts are increasingly willing to spell out: large employers cannot dismiss compliance failures as minor, localised, or merely “technical”.

In proceedings brought by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union, Woolworths Group Limited admitted multiple breaches of its enterprise agreements affecting three part‑time employees in Perth. The admissions included failures to provide standard rosters and guaranteed hours, unpaid overtime, unauthorised variations to contracted hours and unlawful payroll deductions.

The Court imposed penalties totalling $233,250 notwithstanding Woolworths’ arguments that the contraventions arose from store‑level rostering and onboarding practices and were promptly rectified once proceedings were commenced. Judge Sandy Street was clear that remediation after the fact did not neutralise the seriousness of the conduct, particularly where breaches persisted for months and directly affected employees’ income certainty.

Importantly, the Court rejected any suggestion that the contraventions were so minor as to warrant little or no penalty. His Honour stated that employees are entitled to expect that organisations of Woolworths’ size have systems capable of ensuring compliance with industrial instruments.

One of the more striking elements of the judgment was the Court’s focus on governance and accountability. While accepting that senior management did not deliberately engage in or endorse the conduct, Judge Street expressed disappointment at the absence of evidence from Woolworths’ senior leadership demonstrating organisational awareness of, and commitment to, compliance obligations with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”), and relevant agreements and awards. The lack of what the Court described as evidence from the “corporate mind” weighed against the retailer when penalties were assessed.

Although the penalties represented around 5% of the statutory maximum, the Court ordered that the full amount be paid to the AMIEU rather than the affected employees. In doing so, Judge Street emphasised that directing penalties to the union best served the remedial and deterrent purposes of the Act, particularly where enforcement action was driven by a union delegate acting on behalf of colleagues.

That aspect of the decision carries broader implications. It highlights judicial recognition of unions as key compliance enforcers within the industrial system and signals support for penalties that encourage proactive enforcement, rather than treating admitted breaches as issues resolved simply through back‑pay.

For employers, the lessons are clear: breaches characterised as “technical” can still attract significant penalties. Decentralised or store level failures do not insulate corporate entities from responsibility, Courts expect senior‑level commitment to compliance, and Early admissions and remediation reduce risk, but do not eliminate it.

For employees and unions, the case confirms the potency of enterprise agreements and the courts’ willingness to back union‑led enforcement with significant financial consequences.

Ultimately, the Woolworths’ decisions serve as a reminder that compliance must be systemic, embedded and actively overseen, not merely assumed.

Karki v Woolworths Group Limited [2026] FedCFamC2G 411

Ling v Woolworths Group Limited (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2G 410
Dare v Woolworths Group Limited (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2G 407

If you have questions about how these changes may affect you as an employee or franchisee, please contact Nick Stevens, Paul Chapman, Evelyn Rivera, Ayla Hutchison or Dragana Prtenjak.