Background
This representative proceeding concerns allegations that managers at corporate-owned and franchisee-owned McDonald’s restaurants performed unpaid work before rostered shifts and after rostered finishing times. The claims include alleged underpayments under enterprise agreements and awards, record-keeping breaches, excessive-hours contraventions, and alleged franchisor liability.
The Court had set an initial ten-week trial for early 2028, initially involving claims by seven employees against seven respondents. Before then, the parties needed to assemble and analyse extensive employment, roster, clocking and remuneration data to prepare for mediation and trial.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Lee made case-management orders without deciding the merits of the employees’ claims or the respondents’ liability. The Court referred the whole proceeding to mediation, appointed Michael Walton KC as mediator, and directed that a preliminary mediation conference occur as soon as practicable after 14 May 2027.
Under s 37P(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Court directed the parties to confer with a suitably qualified technology expert about whether AI could securely and reliably assist with quantification, document chronologies and summaries, and the broader management and interpretation of relevant data. They must provide the Court with a report or proposed protocol. Any approach must retain traceability to source records, allow outputs to be tested and corrected, protect privileged and confidential material, and remain under human supervision.
Key Takeaways
- The decision is a procedural direction, not a ruling that McDonald’s or franchisees underpaid managers.
- The Court required a serious, cooperative assessment of AI for high-volume evidence and data work in complex litigation.
- AI may assist with mechanical collection and synthesis, but not replace human professional or judicial judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s willingness to use its case-management powers to test whether AI can reduce the cost and time of organising large evidentiary records. It treats source traceability, verification, confidentiality and human oversight as essential safeguards.
For employment class actions and other data-heavy disputes, the ruling signals that parties may be expected to consider technology-assisted methods rather than assume that traditional manual review is the only workable approach.