SA's On The Run convenience store under investigation for traineeship wage loophole

By Alex Mann
ABC News
Posted 45 minutes ago
2 November 2015

One of South Australia's biggest employers, the On The Run convenience store chain, is under investigation by the State Government following reports its traineeship program is a sham designed to keep wages low.   
Key points:

    Chris Norman says he was required to do an automotive traineeship to work at Hungry Jacks inside On The Run
    Trainee wages were $15.30 an hour, compared to average adult wage of $19
    Former manager say staff were also made to sign waiver for overtime wage loading
    On The Run maintains it has 'best traineeship program in Australia'

With more than 125 stores across the state and more than 2,000 employees, On The Run's 24-hour fast food, petrol and convenience store chain is one of South Australia's fastest growing businesses.

Every employee signs the company's promise: "We Never Close."

But in the wake of the wage underpayment scandal engulfing the country's 7-Eleven franchise operations, the company's business model has come under increasing scrutiny.

Former trainees and managers have spoken to the ABC's 7.30 program, many too afraid to speak out publicly.

Law student Chris Norman, 23, is one employee who decided to stand up.

He was required by On The Run to do a Certificate II in Automotive Sales, even though his job was at a Hungry Jacks based inside an On The Run petrol station.

Mr Norman said his job was so different to the training content that On The Run's human resources staff had to provide the answers.

As a trainee, he was paid just $15.30 an hour.

"I didn't want to let them step on me, I wanted to stand up, 'cause it wasn't just happening to me, it was happening to everyone," Mr Norman said.
Business using obscure sub-clause to pay trainee wages

Mr Norman sought the services of a lawyer, who wrote to On The Run requesting he be backpaid more than $800 in lost wages.

That lawyer, Joseph Wearing, said Mr Norman should have been paid closer to $19 an hour.

Through his correspondence with On The Run, Mr Wearing discovered the business used an obscure sub-clause in the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Services and Retail Award 2010 to justify paying their trainees even less than the normal trainee wage because they were provided with "on the job" training.

"I mean the traineeship rate was already lower than the hourly adult rate," Mr Wearing said.


   

"But the on-job training rate was 20 per cent lower again."

Mr Norman said he received barely any training at all, and none of it was relevant to his job at Hungry Jacks.

"We had a one-hour staff meeting once a month, where the HR manager came out and we got worksheets, these worksheets were related to automotive sales, so they didn't really have anything to do with Hungry Jacks," he said.

Mr Norman said he and his colleagues could not answer the questions, so were given the answers by a HR manager.

Mr Wearing said the conclusion to draw was that the training was used to reduce Mr Norman's pay rate.

"Because the training had nothing to do with the job that he was doing, it was only serving to justify the reduction in his rate of pay," he said.   

It wasn't a traineeship loophole

They are clearly ripping off employees, the govt & consequently the tax payer by fraudulent use of traineeships to pay their staff less & to threaten them with further wage reductions if the do not comply.

And you wonder why Unions are a necessity against unscrupulous employers/companies like this.

Sth Aust version of 7Eleven ... You'd have thought that that publicity may have sent them a message but no... Total arrogance that they would get away with it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:


Are you that thick?

I just got a job at an OTR owned subway and I get paid $14.63 an hour during the week and $16.74 on weekends; I'm 20. I expect it won't go up by much next year when I turn 21. I have a mate that's been there for 22 months (same age as me) and they've kept him on the traineeship for the entire time; he worked his way up from $10 an hour to $14. He said that they stall the traineeship for as long as they can, because seeing as how we're part time (which gives us 4 weeks annual leave, paid sick days, guaranteed hours [I'm at 15 p/w] as well as the certificate which is now a cert III in retail) they don't have to pay us as much as casual employees. Do I think it's fair? Nope. Am I going to quit? Nope. A job's a job.

Had my first shift today, no one likes the higher ups. They do the weirdest things, we're not allowed to use red capsicums because they think that means they're overripe; so they get sent back (off topic, but kinda shows how nuts these people are). We're not even allowed to eat the broken cookies

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:28pm:


The SDA, or United Voice.

You should be in the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union (SDA)or the Australian Workers Union (AWU).

There are branches of the SDA in Sth Aust.

But going by what I have read about the SDA agreeing to abolish & and halve certain weekend penalty rates maybe they aren't the way to go.......

Looks like some Unions are going down the road of selling their members short.

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:


how old did you say you were?

If you're stupid enough to ask a manager about Union membership then you won't be employed long.

Try googling the references to Unions you've been given, if you can find your way in here you can surely do that....

Then you will have heard of them 

Talk to mangers about Unions at your own peril.

Sometimes I wonder 

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:


Hey nifty thought about going back to TAFE and doing some sort of course? other than retail..!

Like for example legal secretary.

Just a thought.

Oh i seeeeeee. You are just an arsehole.

mothra wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:02pm:


And you're another.

There will be some bemused residents of SA when they discover that On the Run is on of the 'biggest employers'!!!

mothra wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:


I definitely got that impression. If you have to get your kicks by being a jerk towards someone that's trying to make sense of something that is INCREDIBLY confusing, you must have a pretty dull life. He should take up a hobby, I hear pottery is nice and soothing.

Yeah I will, thanks -- already having a look. (thanks to G. Pecc too, you're a lamb <3)

I suppose not. I dunno, I just assume that knowledge should be readily available to those that seek it and without consequence. I guess I just expect a little more empathy from people than I'm going to realistically get. Maybe I'm naive, or just a noob to this whole adult thing; perhaps both.

Gnads wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:


Oh get your hand off it Gnads. She's probably known she actually has the job for all of 3 days and asking about union membership on day 1 of working is well within the confines of sensible.

Don't you think it's more interesting that somebody should have to go out of their way to find out about a union?

This thread is on the company that employed Nifty. Today. She sees a thread on it. Of course she's going to use if as a source of information.

I hold less issue with you calling her naive than stupid but i still think you're being harsh. Don't you remember your first job?

Gnads wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:



I dunno, maybe my remaining immediate remaining family members haven't worked in a long time so their knowledge might be out of date? Maybe my family life isn't great? Maybe I thought someone on here might have some better knowledge? Maybe I simply find it easier to use the internet rather than ask someone I know? Maybe I didn't know if my family would have the answers I need? Maybe I struggle to ask for help from family members and friends, but find it easier to ask people I do not and never will know personally? Maybe I'm not from this country and have no one here to ask? Maybe I'm Batman and have no living relatives, and Alfred is going senile and can't answer my questions?  Not that I'd ever tell you, you don't deserve to know.

Point is, you didn't need to be an asshole about it. A simple "I wouldn't recommend asking a manager, that could come back to bite you in the ass" would have sufficed -- save you coming across as a jerk at the very least.

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:


I didn't tell you want to do... I advised the Union that could assist you...

You played the silly flippant ... I responded in kind.

You seem well versed in repartee in this medium, so much so that I think you're just playing games.

Btw I wouldn't take your advice re: a hobby nor will I respond to you or any other person how they think I should have responded or how they wanted.

Life is full of bitter disappointment

Best of luck ... You'll need it or a shrink. Maybe? 

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:


The national minimum wage is $17.29 hr. Unless you are considered to be in training which is what the current complaint is about.

In house training should be short in duration and relevant to the work being performed, not just an excuse to pay lower wages.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:10pm:


Any point ?

Is there a size when it becomes ok the be a grub of an employer ?

The Niftiest Bear wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:


The SDA is the largest Union in Australia.

They've looked after Subway employees in the past.