If you’ve ever ordered a pizza and wondered who’s really paying the price — it turns out, for years, it was the delivery drivers and store workers themselves. In a significant legal development that sent shockwaves through Australia’s fast food industry, the Federal Court has ruled in favor of thousands of low-paid Domino’s franchisee workers, finding that the global pizza giant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct over worker wages. It’s the kind of ruling that doesn’t just make legal headlines it changes lives.
Let’s break down what happened, why it matters, and what comes next.
The Background: A Class Action Years in the Making
This wasn’t a sudden development. The class action was first filed in June 2019 by plaintiff law firm Phi Finney McDonald against Domino’s, alleging systemic underpayment of thousands of delivery drivers and in-store workers across franchise outlets nationwide over a five-year period, caused by misleading and deceptive conduct.
Think about that timeline. Workers waited over six years for justice. We’re talking about people who showed up every day, drove through traffic in all weather conditions, handled demanding customers, and stretched every dollar all while being paid less than they were legally owed.
The class action was brought forward by lead plaintiff Riley Gall, a former Queensland delivery driver who claimed Domino’s underpaid him by directing franchise operators to pay staff under the wrong workplace instrument. He was seeking more than $10,000 in underpaid wages and entitlements covering the period from June 2013 to January 2018, with the class action ultimately covering delivery drivers and in-store workers employed by Domino’s Australian franchisees.
It’s worth pausing to appreciate the courage it takes for a former delivery driver to take on one of the world’s largest pizza chains. Riley Gall did exactly that, and the ripple effect of his perseverance is now being felt across thousands of workers’ lives.
What the Court Actually Found
Here’s where things get really interesting from a legal standpoint. The Federal Court ruled in favour of the workers, with Justice Bernard Murphy finding that Domino’s instructed its Australian franchisees to pay delivery drivers and in-store workers under enterprise bargaining agreements, when some employees were actually entitled to the protections of the Fast Food Industry Award which carries better terms and conditions.
In plain English? Domino’s told its franchise owners to use a payment arrangement that gave workers fewer rights and lower pay than what the law required. The Fast Food Industry Award is specifically designed to protect workers in this sector and Domino’s effectively steered its franchisees away from it.
Justice Murphy didn’t mince words. He found that the Fast Food Industry Award rather than the enterprise agreements applied to the lead plaintiff and a substantial group of delivery drivers and in-store workers employed by franchise operators during the relevant period. Consequently, Domino’s conduct in making those representations was found to be objectively wrong — and therefore misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. That’s a serious legal finding, and it sets a powerful precedent for how franchise models must operate in Australia.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Detail | Information |
| Case filed | June 2019 |
| Lead Plaintiff | Riley Gall, former Queensland delivery driver |
| Period covered | June 2013 – January 2018 |
| Presiding Judge | Justice Bernard Murphy, Federal Court |
| Law firm (plaintiff) | Phi Finney McDonald |
| Funding | Therium (litigation funder) |
What Workers Were Owed And Why It Was Denied
| Entitlement Type | Details |
| Correct Workplace Instrument | Fast Food Industry Award (not enterprise agreements) |
| Period of Underpayment | Approximately 5 years (2013–2018) |
| Workers Affected | Delivery drivers and in-store workers across franchises |
| Lead Plaintiff’s Claim | Over $10,000 in underpaid wages and entitlements |
| Legal Breach | Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (misleading/deceptive conduct) |
Riley Gall’s Story: More Than Just a Lawsuit
Behind every class action is a real human story, and Riley Gall’s is one that resonates deeply. He started working at Domino’s as a delivery driver at just 17 years old and spent three years working across three stores in Queensland. He was a young father at the time, doing what so many people do trying to make ends meet with an honest job.
Gall reflected warmly on the outcome, saying the ruling was never just about him personally but about justice for the thousands of others who were exploited and not paid the amounts they deserved under the correct award. He noted that having a young child while struggling financially made the discovery that he’d been underpaid by thousands of dollars all the more shocking. Being paid at the correct award rate, he said, would have made a genuinely meaningful difference to his life at that time.
That kind of statement grounds this case in reality. This wasn’t abstract legal maneuvering this was about whether a young dad could pay his bills. And the answer, for years, was no because a multinational corporation pointed his employer toward the wrong pay rate.
The Legal and Industry Reaction
The legal community and worker advocates didn’t hold back. Brett Spiegel, principal lawyer at Phi Finney McDonald, described the judgment as a great result for underpaid workers, saying it finally delivers the justice Domino’s franchise employees deserve. He made a pointed observation: that systematic underpayment over a five-year period is not only unlawful but fundamentally not a viable or legal business model.
That last point is worth underlining. When a company’s profitability depends — even partially — on paying workers less than they’re legally owed, that’s not clever business strategy. That’s exploitation. And Australia’s Federal Court has now said so, clearly and on the record.
The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU) was equally vocal. Josh Cullinan, the union’s director of litigation strategy, said that when members first raised concerns that older enterprise agreements were being used to shortchange workers at Domino’s outlets, a forensic investigation in 2018 uncovered a wider system of exploitation by a multi-billion-dollar franchisor targeting some of Australia’s lowest-paid workers. He praised the legal team and litigation funder Therium for being willing to fight the case through, and said the court’s ruling has now fully vindicated that campaign.
What Happens Next?
The ruling on liability is a massive step forward, but the story isn’t over. A further hearing is scheduled to determine the specific claims of group members — meaning thousands of workers could still be in line for individual compensation payouts. The process will be complex, but the legal foundation is now firmly in place: Domino’s misled its franchisees, workers were underpaid as a direct result, and that conduct violated Australian law.
For Domino’s, the financial exposure could be enormous. We’re talking about thousands of workers potentially owed back pay going back to 2013. The exact bill won’t be known until group member claims are individually assessed, but the total could run into tens of millions of dollars.
Why This Ruling Matters Beyond Pizza
Let’s zoom out for a moment. This case isn’t just about one fast food chain or one group of delivery drivers. It’s about how franchise business models operate in Australia — and how corporate responsibility gets distributed between head office and the franchisees they license.
When a corporate franchisor tells thousands of local franchise operators how to pay their staff, and that advice turns out to be legally wrong and financially harmful to workers, who’s accountable? Australia’s Federal Court has now answered that question clearly: the franchisor is. Domino’s can’t simply point to the franchisee and walk away. This ruling could reshape how large brands manage their obligations across entire franchise networks — not just in fast food, but across retail, hospitality, and beyond.
Final Thoughts
This ruling is a reminder that legal systems, when they work as they should, can be a genuine equalizer. A 17-year-old delivery driver from Queensland took on a global fast food empire and, more than six years later, a Federal Court judge validated his claim. That’s not just justice for Riley Gall. That’s a signal to every low-paid worker in Australia that the system can and does work for them.
The fight for fair wages is never truly over. But on July 23, 2026, it took a significant step forward and the workers who deliver our pizzas in the rain deserve every dollar that’s coming their way.