EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 542

Rogers v McDonald's Australia

A Federal Court class-action case-management decision about alleged unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work by McDonald's managers.

Federal Court of Australia24 Apr 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Rostering systems need to deal with real work, not just rostered shift boxes.
  • A Federal Court class-action case-management decision about alleged unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work by McDonald's managers.

Use this to check

  • The judgment set the initial trial scope and did not decide final underpayment liability.
  • Unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work can become a system-wide payroll allegation.
  • Franchise respondents may be affected by common findings even if they have played a passive role.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • This representative proceeding concerns current and former McDonald's managers who worked at corporate-owned and franchisee-owned restaurants between 6 December 2017 and 3 February 2020.
    • The applicants allege that managers were not paid for work performed before rostered start times and after rostered finish times.
    • McDonald's Australia and one franchisee, Pollburg, were actively defending the proceeding, while many other franchisee respondents had not been required to participate actively before the initial trial.
    • The judgment did not decide whether underpayments occurred.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court considered the scope of an initial trial in a representative Fair Work proceeding, including whether the trial should cover all deponents' claims, how common questions should be managed, whether serious contravention issues under s 557A should be considered, and how passive franchisee respondents should be treated before trial.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court vacated earlier orders and made case-management orders for conferral, issue narrowing and the initial trial.
    • The initial trial will determine liability for claims relating to specified sample employees and sample employers, including claims under ss 557A and 558B of the Fair Work Act, and common questions to be specified at a later case management hearing.
    • The judgment did not decide whether McDonald's Australia or any franchisee had contravened the Fair Work Act.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Rostering systems need to deal with real work, not just rostered shift boxes.
  • If managers or staff are expected to open, close, prepare, reconcile, clean up or complete handover tasks outside paid time, that can become a payroll and class-action issue.

Useful next steps

  • The judgment set the initial trial scope and did not decide final underpayment liability.
  • Unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work can become a system-wide payroll allegation.
  • Franchise respondents may be affected by common findings even if they have played a passive role.
  • Serious contravention issues may be considered where proven contraventions are alleged to be systemic.
  • Audit what staff and managers do before rostered start times and after rostered finish times.

Practical read

This is not a final underpayment judgment. It is a case-management decision in a large payroll class action. But it is still highly practical for franchise systems and multi-site employers because it shows the kind of operational allegation that can scale quickly: unpaid work around the edges of rostered shifts.

The Court decided that the initial trial should deal with the claims of the people who were giving evidence, not just a narrower group of named applicants. It also decided that the issue of serious contravention should be considered at the initial trial if contraventions are proved. That matters because serious contravention findings can affect penalty exposure.

For businesses, the real-world lesson is to audit what managers actually do before and after their rostered hours. Opening checks, cash handling, stock, shift handover, customer issues, systems tasks and closing routines should be captured in paid time or expressly controlled so they are not performed unpaid. The harder it is to describe the true system, the harder it is to defend.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Audit what staff and managers do before rostered start times and after rostered finish times.
  • Capture opening, closing, handover and reconciliation tasks in paid hours.
  • Train managers not to normalise unpaid setup or close-down work.
  • Keep payroll, roster, time-clock and task records aligned across sites.
  • For franchise networks, check whether franchisee practices create common system-wide risks.

Key takeaways

  • The judgment set the initial trial scope and did not decide final underpayment liability.
  • Unpaid pre-shift and post-shift work can become a system-wide payroll allegation.
  • Franchise respondents may be affected by common findings even if they have played a passive role.
  • Serious contravention issues may be considered where proven contraventions are alleged to be systemic.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help