Woolworths Wins: Federal Court Upholds FWC Approval of 2024 Supermarket Enterprise Agreement

| September 9, 2025

Full Court rejects RAFFWU’s challenge—no jurisdictional error in BOOT, ballot process, or pre-approval explanations. 

On 14 August 2025, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed RAFFWU’s challenge to the Fair Work Commission’s approval of the Woolworths Australian Food Group Agreement 2024. The union alleged flaws in the BOOT, voting process, explanations under the Fair Work Act, and procedural fairness. The Court found none of these grounds had merit. 

Key Legal Issues Considered

• BOOT (Better Off Overall Test): Did part-timers lose out due to flexible rostering? 
• Genuine Agreement: Was the agreement “genuinely agreed to” under the Act? 
• Explanations Duty (s 180(5)): Did Woolworths take all reasonable steps to explain the terms and their effect? 
• Ballot Integrity: Did ineligible casuals vote, and if so, was it material? 
• Procedural Fairness: Were reasons and process adequate? 

Court’s Findings

The Full Court systematically examined RAFFWU’s objections across several legal grounds—including the BOOT test, ballot integrity, explanation obligations, and procedural fairness—and found that the Fair Work Commission had acted within its statutory powers and discretion at every step.

BOOT Challenge (Part-time Rostering) 

The Court upheld the FWC’s decision that part-timers were not disadvantaged overall. Flexible rostering was balanced by safeguards and other employee benefits. The reasoning was within the range of lawful and reasonable outcomes. 

Ballot Process and Casual Eligibility 

Even if some ineligible casuals voted, the margin of the ballot was so large that it did not affect the result. The agreement was validly made under the Act. 

Explanations under s 180(5) 

• Legacy JB&S cohort: Workers were told about lower base rates and offsetting payments—this met the “all reasonable steps” test. 
• Annual Wage Review increase: A footnote noting the AWR adjustment was legally adequate; detailed recalculations weren’t required. 
• “Only SDA members can vote” misinformation: Incorrect third-party claims did not undermine genuine agreement, as Woolworths’ own communications were clear and accurate. 

Procedural Fairness 

The union had the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and raise timetable concerns but chose not to. No breach of procedural fairness was found. 

Outcome: RAFFWU’s application was dismissed; costs were reserved for later submissions. 

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. BOOT is a holistic test. 
Safeguards and broader benefits can offset localised detriments. Employers should document how potential disadvantages are addressed. 

2. “All reasonable steps” is practical, not perfect. 
Clear fact sheets, FAQs, and comparison tables usually suffice, provided the information is accurate and accessible. 

3. Ballot errors must be material. 
Minor eligibility slip-ups won’t derail an EA if the result is decisive. Employers should still maintain audit trails to prove ballot integrity. 

4. Official communications matter most. 
Third-party misinformation is unlikely to undermine an EA where the employer’s own guidance is correct and comprehensive. 

5. Speak up during hearings. 
If more time or evidence is needed in FWC proceedings, ask for it then—silence weakens later claims of unfairness. 

Need advice on your next enterprise agreement? IRiQ Law can help employers design agreements that withstand union challenges and FWC scrutiny. Contact our team today to discuss your strategy.