63 7-Eleven Franchisees Investigated So Far
Australia’s new Fair Work Ombudsman is flexing its muscle with government inspectors teaming up with the 7-Eleven franchisor to investigate 63 franchisees.
It is reported that 5 franchisees have already reimbursed $112,000 to employees.
It is important these workers know there is a committed regulator they can turn to if they are concerned they are not being treated fairly. Complaints can be made anonymously and confidentially. Michael Campbell, Fair Work Ombudsman Executive Director.
Australia’s Fair Work Bill was introduced in November 2008 and the Rudd government is claiming some much needed kudos on the back of some soft targets within the fragile franchisee sector and this time, specifically the ailing 7-Eleven franchise model.
Reports of abusive employee practices from the 7-Eleven network have been simmering for a number of years and this year the media reports have snowballed where employees suggest;
that despite the bullying and intimidation the workers were not about to back down.
No one will offer any sympathy to these franchisees as they are destined to feel some apparently much deserved regulatory pain however; the 7-Eleven saga has been a complicated web of associated ‘cause and effect’ issues that again finds the fallout being dropped squarely and only in the lap of franchisees. The franchisor remains distinctly pure;
To the credit of the franchisor of Victoria’s 7-Eleven stores, it shares our concerns with the issues identified and agreed to assist us in this extensive State-wide campaign, Campbell said.
The question must be asked; is this behaviour a symptom of a franchise model where the franchisee financial model doesn’t deliver or simply where franchisee selection processes fail? Here is a brief chronology as the basis for such a question;
- 2001 saw the ACCC force 7-Eleven franchisees to drop retail pricing on 120 plus product lines.
- 2005-6 saw an up swell of 7-Eleven franchisee complaints regarding poor profitability.
- 2006-7 saw the beginning of reports of abusive 7-Eleven employee practices that lead us to today’s events.
While the current investigation focus is on Victoria there have also been Sydney complaints of employee exploitation.
Industry experts would rightfully be confused if the franchisor is suggesting that systemic abuses of employee entitlements have gone unnoticed where the 7-Eleven franchisor professes that;
Store performance analysis, operating expenses, product ranges, visual merchandising, marketing and promotion are just a few of the areas where support is provided.
Of note is the determination of the Fair Work regulator; unlike the efforts of the franchising regulator the ACCC, when franchisees complained that their franchise agreements and operational practices by the franchisor were sending them broke.
This is not the first time or the first franchisor to be taken to task over abusive employee practices.
Back in 2004-5 Bakers Delight saw new franchisee Deanne De Leeuw confront unacceptable practices she had inherited when she purchased her franchise. Not only was the Bakers Delight franchisor’s reaction to the unlawful practices of franchisees one of disinterest; when push came to shove the franchisor then targeted the recalcitrant new franchisee for her audacity in ensuring that employees received their lost entitlements.
The lack of effective regulation by the ACCC came to the fore when Bakers Delight, amongst a number of other franchise systems were similarly investigated and all typically were found not to have a case to answer. It would have been interesting had the new Fair Work Ombudsman been in place back then.

I see the same staff in mine all the time
Why not let the market decide on what is fair wages? It's not just 7-Eleven owners. Most owners everywhere fudge on this because profit margins are particularly challenged right now, and people prefer having a job - even if it is at a lower than "fair" wage - to not having a job.
Let the marketplace decide what's best for it.
I’m confused. Are you referring to the economic principle of ‘let the market decide’ or the long standing franchising excuse? While there is a difference between over-regulation and effective regulation there seems little difference between ‘fudging’ and systemic theft. In this particular instance this behaviour began years before the fat cats ate the foundations of the world economies so that notion doesn’t even begin to stand up.
And besides; which level of ‘fudging’ is acceptable? Where retail prices are jammed up, where foreign, student and disadvantaged employees are screwed out of entitlements without being advised it is a ‘take it or leave it’ illegal pay structure, where the franchisee financial model offers minimal wage as ROI or where governments fudge on making any attempt to achieve reasonable balance in markets prone to ‘fudging’?
It has been argued that the current economic woes came about from a lack or effective regulation and greed. Similar fudging to what is apparently acceptable in the free market that is franchising where it isn’t free for the suckers at the bottom of a ponzi scheme.
Carte blanche on wages would be a reasonable basis for a growing peasantry. Why not a reasonable balance where low income earners have some protection as an alternate to low income earners being testing ground for manipulated ‘free’ markets? And I'm not sure where free markets and 'intimidation and threat' should fit; but apparently they do. Perhaps the term should hence forth be referred to as 'let the manipulated market decide'.
I get confused easily ..
7-Eleven scoops top franchise award