PERRAM J
1 The parties have applied to the Court for orders inter alia that a notice to group members ('opt-out notice') be issued pursuant to s 33X of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ('the Act').
2 The parties are largely in agreement as to the form the opt-out notice should take, however, they disagree about a passage on page 9 of the short minutes of order proposed by the Respondents ('Woolworths'). To understand the debate it is necessary to set out not only that passage but also the section preceding it on page 8. The disputed text appears in italics.
ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION
A class action is a legal proceeding brought by someone on behalf of a group of people with similar claims (called a "class").
This class action has been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia against Woolworths Group Limited and Woolworths (South Australia) Pty Ltd. It is made on behalf of salaried team members who worked at Woolworths Supermarkets, Woolworths Metro, or BIG W from 30 November 2013 to when the legal proceeding was filed (the Relevant Period) whose position title was, or included the word, manager.
The class action alleges that, if a manager's entitlement under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 ("Award") was higher than their annual salary during the Relevant Period, then they should have been paid the higher amount. The class action legal proceeding seeks to recover any additional amounts that should have been paid, and have penalties (like a fine) imposed on Woolworths. If ordered by the Court, compensation for underpayments and penalties may be paid to eligible class members.
WOOLWORTHS PAYMENTS
Woolworths has carried out a "Salaried Team Pay Review", which is not associated with the class action, to identify shortfalls in payments based on Woolworths' records as to the hours each salaried manager worked. Woolworths has made payments of these shortfalls, plus interest and superannuation, in accordance with its calculations. Woolworths has also set up a review process, separate to the class action, as a way for you to resolve directly with Woolworths any queries or concerns about whether you may be entitled to an additional payment and if so, how much. If your query or concern is not resolved directly with Woolworths to your satisfaction, you may refer it to an independent review process that is chaired by former Fair Work Commissioner, Mr Greg Harrison.
Woolworths' Salaried Team Pay Review is a separate process to the class action legal proceeding, and you can access it directly at no cost. You do not have to pay any part of a payment you may receive from that process to any lawyers, unless you directly decide to do so. Details are available at: https://team.woolworths.com.au/faqs.html#/login
You are able to participate in both the class action legal proceedings and Woolworths' Salaried Team Pay Review process simultaneously, and participation in one does not affect your eligibility to participate in the other. Woolworths may be entitled to offset any payments made to you in connection with its Salaried Team Pay Review against any underpayment established by way of the class action legal proceedings.
3 The guiding purpose of an opt-out notice is to provide group members with sufficient information about the suit to make an informed decision as to whether to stay in the class or whether instead to opt-out of it: King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 270 at [15] per Sackville, Hely and Stone JJ; Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1037 ('Courtney v Medtel') at [9]-[11] per Sackville J; Gagarimabu v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd [2001] VSC 304 at [19] per Hedigan J. On the other hand, the achievement of that purpose necessarily requires the notice to be comprehensible to its intended recipients. The notice must therefore be in plain English and such that it will make sense to persons who are not lawyers: Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2020] NSWSC 504 ('Komlotex') at [160], [188] per Ward CJ in Eq; Courtney v Medtel at [10] per Sackville J; McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd (No 6) [1998] FCA 658; 84 FCR 1 at 5 per Wilcox J.
4 There is an obvious tension between these two aims. Too much information too densely expressed will result in a notice which, whilst accurate, will be unsuited to the delivery of its payload. On the other hand, in the pursuit of brevity so much detail of the suit may be lost that there is, in effect, no payload to deliver: see Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2010] FCA 749 at [20]-[21] per Flick J.
5 The tension becomes increasingly acute the more complex the suit is. It is by no means unknown for a class action to exist in a milieu where there are other parallel class actions and where group members may belong to more than one action. There seems to be no debate in such cases that some reference to the other class actions is necessary in an opt-out notice for a decision to opt in or out of the class would scarcely be made on an informed basis if the group member did not know what other class actions he or she may belong to which raise similar issues: see, eg, Komlotex at [56], [180], [188], [216] per Ward CJ in Eq; Mitsub Pty Ltd v McGraw-Hill Financial Inc (No 2) [2016] FCA 1285 at [12] per Rares J.
6 This case does not present the situation where there are competing class actions. However, it does present a situation where the Respondents have themselves set up an internal mechanism for addressing the underpayments which are alleged. Plainly, the existence of that mechanism is something of which group members need to be informed. The parties are in agreement on this and jointly propose that there should be a section in the opt-out notice dealing with that topic.
7 The question of how detailed the description of the alternate mechanism needs to be is a function of how much information the group members need to have in order to be able to make an informed decision. I do not think that the agreed text is adequate for that purpose. The fact that, at no cost, salaried managers may seek to resolve any underpayment claim directly with Woolworths and may access independent review of any determination which Woolworths makes, also at no cost, is relevant to a group member's decision as to whether they wish to opt out of the proceedings.
8 In my view, the opt-out notice should contain the disputed text. Accordingly, I will make the orders proposed by the parties in the form which includes the disputed text on page 9 of the proposed short minutes of order.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Perram.