Coles to defend class action lawsuit over workers’ pay   :(
InsideRetail.com.au
January 29, 2026
Coles has confirmed that it will be defending the claims made by Shine Lawyers in a class action lawsuit, according to a filing to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

The supermarket giant is accused of denying proper penalty rates to casual workers in South Australia for work performed on Sundays. Shine Lawyers alleged that the transgressions took place between December 23, 2023, and December 31, 2023. 

Under South Australian law, Sundays were legislated as public holidays from the year 1910 until 31 December 2023, meaning eligible employees should have received public holiday penalty rates and other entitlements for work performed on those days.

Woolworths, McDonald’s, Big W, and Hungry Jacks are also accused in the lawsuit, which was announced by Shine Lawyers last month.

“Workers in these actions were entitled to public holiday penalty rates for working on Sundays. and these employers have failed to meet those obligations. This is not a state-wide sweep. We are pursuing employers who we will allege failed in their legal obligations to workers” said Craig Allsopp, Shine Lawyers’ head of class actions.


In an acknowledgment of the filing on the ASX, Coles said: “Coles Group Limited has been notified that a class action has been filed against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia by Shine Lawyers.

“Coles will defend the proceedings. Coles does not consider the proceedings to be market sensitive.”

Shine Lawyers is working in partnership with the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU) on the cases.   :)

Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :(

whiteknight wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 5:30am:

Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :(

Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements.

Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union.

Good grief - Coles not only rips off their customers but
also rips off their employees.    ::)


2 days ago I paid $31.60 for 4 items from Coles.  ::)

One item was $9.50 for a 375 gram tub of butter.  ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 9:21am:

whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union.

Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 10:03am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:21am: whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union. Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then?

Yeah   :)

It's not a registered organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009.

Thus, not a real Union.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 11:05am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:21am: whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union. Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then? Yeah   :) It's not a registered organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. Thus, not a real Union.

That is because of the overlaping coverage with the SDA who do a very poor job hardly represent their members at all.

They are in fact a registered as an incorporated association and have the right to be heard in front of fair work and can represent their members in negotiations and legal actions.


Quote:

RAFFWU is currently registered as an incorporated association, not an employee organisation, due to "industry coverage restrictions". As such, RAFFWU is currently unable to obtain Right of Entry permits. RAFFWU is able to be heard in dealings with the Fair Work Commission in numerous proceedings in its own right including as bargaining representative and as a concerned union in Award Review proceedings.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 5:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 11:05am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:21am: whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union. Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then? Yeah   :) It's not a registered organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. Thus, not a real Union. That is because of the overlaping coverage with the SDA who do a very poor job hardly represent their members at all. They are in fact a registered as an incorporated association and have the right to be heard in front of fair work and can represent their members in negotiations and legal actions. Quote: RAFFWU is currently registered as an incorporated association, not an employee organisation, due to "industry coverage restrictions". As such, RAFFWU is currently unable to obtain Right of Entry permits. RAFFWU is able to be heard in dealings with the Fair Work Commission in numerous proceedings in its own right including as bargaining representative and as a concerned union in Award Review proceedings.

That's right.

And I went up against them in the FWC and beat them.

They're not really in it for their members - they're in it to stick it to the SDA.

They were started by a disgruntled SDA member.

I know the whole story, believe me  ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30^th, 2026 at 5:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:44pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 11:05am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:21am: whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union. Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then? Yeah   :) It's not a registered organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. Thus, not a real Union. That is because of the overlaping coverage with the SDA who do a very poor job hardly represent their members at all. They are in fact a registered as an incorporated association and have the right to be heard in front of fair work and can represent their members in negotiations and legal actions. Quote: RAFFWU is currently registered as an incorporated association, not an employee organisation, due to "industry coverage restrictions". As such, RAFFWU is currently unable to obtain Right of Entry permits. RAFFWU is able to be heard in dealings with the Fair Work Commission in numerous proceedings in its own right including as bargaining representative and as a concerned union in Award Review proceedings. That's right. And I went up against them in the FWC and beat them. They're not really in it for their members - they're in it to stick it to the SDA. They were started by a disgruntled SDA member. I know the whole story, believe me  ;)

Quote:

they're in it to stick it to the SDA.

I looked over many SDA agreements. I would think that anyone sticking it to the SDA would be benifiting employees by default.

SDA has undermined wages conditions penalty rates and almost anything else they touched.

The reason that action is needed on penalty rates is because the SDA gave them away and got nothing for it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 9:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:52pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:44pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 11:05am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 10:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:21am: whiteknight wrote on Jan 30th, 2026 at 5:30am: Yes people that work weekends and public holidays, should get paid the penalty rates.  Good on the union.  If you want people to work these hours, then pay them the penalty rates.   :( Yes, workers should be paid all their entitlements. Just a note though: RAFFWU is not a real Union. Ah - a RIFF-RAFFWU then? Yeah   :) It's not a registered organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. Thus, not a real Union. That is because of the overlaping coverage with the SDA who do a very poor job hardly represent their members at all. They are in fact a registered as an incorporated association and have the right to be heard in front of fair work and can represent their members in negotiations and legal actions. Quote: RAFFWU is currently registered as an incorporated association, not an employee organisation, due to "industry coverage restrictions". As such, RAFFWU is currently unable to obtain Right of Entry permits. RAFFWU is able to be heard in dealings with the Fair Work Commission in numerous proceedings in its own right including as bargaining representative and as a concerned union in Award Review proceedings. That's right. And I went up against them in the FWC and beat them. They're not really in it for their members - they're in it to stick it to the SDA. They were started by a disgruntled SDA member. I know the whole story, believe me  ;) [quote]they're in it to stick it to the SDA.

I looked over many SDA agreements. I would think that anyone sticking it to the SDA would be benifiting employees by default.

SDA has undermined wages conditions penalty rates and almost anything else they touched.[/quote]

Hmmm.

I find your comments interesting.

I've seen pretty much every single SDA Agreement, and I even drafted some with Peter Malinauskas.

From my experiences with the people working in the WA and SA offices, they fought extremely hard for their members' wages and conditions.

:-/