Thousands of underpaid Domino’s workers could be entitled to compensation following landmark class action



News.com.au
July 22, 2026

Thousands of underpaid Domino’s workers could be entitled to compensation following a landmark class action.   

A Federal Court found Domino’s Pizza Enterprises mislead franchisees by directing them to underpay thousands of drivers and in-store staff over five years under outdated employment agreements.

The court found the pizza chain instructed its Australian franchisees to pay delivery drivers and in-store workers under enterprise bargaining agreements, when some employees were covered under the Fast Food Industry Award.

Workers missed out on benefits included in the award, such as a 25 per cent loading for casual workers, penalty rates for working after-hours, weekends and public holidays and minimum three-hour shifts.

A Federal Court found some Domino’s delivery drivers and in-store staff missed out on benefits.

The Retail and Fast Food Workers’ Union’s (RAFFWU) uncovered the underpayments following a forensic investigation.

Justice Bernard Murphy found the “Award rather than the Agreements applied to the employment of the applicant and a substantial cohort of delivery drivers and in-store workers employed by franchise operators during the relevant period”.


Justice Murphy ruled the conduct was “wrong”, and “was therefore misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct which was likely to mislead or deceive”.

“It is likely that similarly situated group members employed in award stores also suffered causally connected loss, but the scope of the initial trial only allows determination of the applicant’s loss,” he said.

Group member claims will be decided at another hearing.


The class action was launched against Domino’s on behalf of a former delivery driver for the pizza giant Riley Gall in 2019.



Mr Gall started working for the pizza chain when he was 17-years-old at various stores across North Caboolture for about three years.

“I had a young child at the time and things were a struggle. I was shocked to discover that I was underpaid by thousands of dollars,” he said.

“Had they paid the correct award rate, it would have made a meaningful difference to me at the time.”

Law firm Phi Finney McDonald filed the legal action over underpayment of wages under Australian Consumer Law for loss caused by deceptive conduct over a five-year period between 2013 and 2018.


Principal lawyer Brett Spiegel said the judgment was a great result for underpaid workers who finally had the justice they deserved.

“Employees at Domino’s franchises have waited a long time to be compensated for underpayment,” Mr Spiegel said.

“This systematic underpayment over a five-year period is not only unlawful, but also not a viable or legal business model.

“This landmark victory highlights the harm widespread and systemic wages underpayment inflicts on a vulnerable labour force.”

Frank wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2026 at 11:09am:


The whole problem is that the Agreement didn't apply to those particular workers.

Justice Bernard Murphy found the “Award rather than the Agreements applied to the employment of the applicant and a substantial cohort of delivery drivers and in-store workers employed by franchise operators during the relevant period”.

Frank wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2026 at 11:53am:


I don't know the details of this case but there could be a few reasons.

They might not have voted for the Agreement - it might have been made years before they were employed.

SDA - Domino's Pizza Agreement 2009, for example.

Or, they might not be included in the scope of the Agreement - which is my guess.

Agreements have clauses which give details of exactly who the instrument covers - which stores, which positions, and sometimes the date they were employed.

e.g. "This Agreement shall be binding on Domino's Pizza Enterprises Limited (Franchisor) and all Franchisees who are listed in Schedule A to this Agreement."

If the store they work in isn't listed in Schedule A (it might have opened after the Agreement was made), then the employees aren't covered by the Agreement.

Not quite - any agreements has to meet the Howard Test ... cannot be disadvantaged by working under an agreement as opposed to a Award.

American style businesses with American style pay rates.
Such workers who choose to work for such deserve peanuts.

Frank wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2026 at 11:09am:


Yet employers when they set a precedent in an EBA dispute will often use the modern award as the lowest common denominator instead of what is in the agreed EBA.

Gnads wrote on Jul 24^th, 2026 at 6:43pm:


Dominos is usually franchised out to locals. It would be unreasonable to think that Dominos would supply enough company cars for all their drivers. Some are on e-bikes. Other drivers use scooters.

Dominos pays a generous fuel reimbursement. The generous payment is paid per delivery to reimburse the fuel and the remainder to cover tyre replacement and engine servicing every year.

Very rarely have I heard of any of the Rockhampton stores having a shortage of drivers. When a driver moves on, there is usually a new driver by the next week. With anywhere between 10 and 15 drivers per store, it is likely that you would not see the same driver twice.