Bakers Delight enter Climate Change debate

Herald Sun columnist and bloggist Andrew Bolt, through his blog, has created another climate change discussion, this time involving Bakers Delight.  

“Latest IPCC shock. Bakers Delight reveals that one of this discredited UN body’s sources is just some primary school kid in Australia.”

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change by human activity. It does not undertake its own research, merely publish reports based on others research. It has often been criticised.

The blog continues:

“Yet Kevin Rudd would actually approve. Honest to God, just last month in his speech at Copenhagen he told IPCC to take the advice of a six year old:

Before I left Australia, I was presented with a book of handwritten letters from a group of 6 year olds.

One of the letters is from Gracie. Gracie is six – “Hi” she wrote. “My name is Gracie. How old are you.” Gracie continues “I am writing to you because I want you all to be strong in Copenhagen… Please listen to us as it is our future.” I fear that at this conference, we are on the verge of letting little Gracie down.”

It is of course the Bakers Delight ad for their new Chia Bread that has started the uproar. Comments against Bakers Delight are now appearing on the blog:

“I have just been to my Local Bakers Delight Shop and informed them… I can no longer continue to support a Company thats supports the Global Warming/Climate Change SCAM in any way, shape or form.”

And:

“It Leaves a kind of yucky taste in you mouth doesn’t it?
Using Kids. rudd would stoop to anything.
God I am steaming..? grrr Contact Bakers delight and complain. I am.”

With Bakers Delight just signing a 12 month exclusive deal with WA’s Ord Valley Chia Company, the effect of a public backlash by Climate Change sceptics must be of concern.

Bakers Delight make the Name & Shame List

Bakers Delight have made it onto the NSW Food Authority’s Name and Shame List. Again.

The list, updated on 19 January 2010, lists 9 penalty notices issued to 5 Bakers Delight stores, one of which is a Company Owned Business (COB). The notices were handed out in NSW throughout 2009.

Bakers Delight Crows Nest, a company owned bakery, was found to have unclean equipment, as well as unclean containers, appliances and light fittings. Those who listened to the 2UE series on franchising back in 2007 may remember the ‘Happy Franchisee’ from Crows Nest who called up to say how great Bakers Delight were – and was exposed as an employee. 

Four other Bakers Delight bakeries, Seven Hills, Narellan, Orange and Freshwater were also found to be unclean. Whilst all stores were found to be unclean, Orange was also found harbouring weevils and Narellan failed to store food in such a way “that it is protected from the likelihood of contamination”.

See NSW Food Authority website for further details.

Franchisors failing franchisees in regulatory compliance

The Fair Work Ombudsman has launched a prosecution against the former operators of two 7-Eleven stores in Victoria, alleging they underpaid four employees more than $85,000.

This comes as the result of their continuing audit of over 60 7-Eleven franchises in Victoria. 

Last year five 7-Eleven stores in Melbourne’s CBD were asked to reimburse 88 workers $112,000 and a sixth store has been instructed to credit almost 1000 hours of annual leave to 12 staff who should have been accruing the entitlement.

Australia’s Fair Work Bill was introduced in November 2008, and the Ombudsman has been busy conducting investigations and issuing penalty notices.

The 7-Eleven result highlights how the franchisor will back away from their franchisee, and jump in on the regulators side – often using the occasion to further punish the franchisee.

This is certainly the case with Bakers Delight. In 2005 a 15 year old schoolgirl, Deanna Renalla, took a SA franchisee to the Industrial Relations Commission for underpayment of wages. Ms Renalla won in court for being underpaid in accordance with a Bakers Delight AWA. And Bakers Delight breached the franchisee.

There was also the NSW Bakers Delight franchisee who was the subject of immense media scrutiny when she issued a letter regarding terms of employment. The AWA Yeng Yap was implementing was not considered fair, and the Workplace Ombudsman was immediately called in to investigate. The Workplace Ombudsman did not punish MS Yap after they investigated and helped her understand her obligations. Ms Yap was however breached by Bakers Delight and threatened with the termination of her franchise.

Where is the support that franchisees are promised when they buy into this franchise?

The fight for fair wages in Bakers Delight stores continues with the Unite.org group staging public rallies in Victoria to raise the profile of this issue.

Back to 7-Eleven where reports of problems in the franchise network have been around for a number of years, finally reaching the media last year when complaints were made to the new Fair Work Ombudsman (formerly Workplace Ombudsman) about underpayment, bullying and intimidation of employees by their employers.

The franchiseexpo.com.au website tables a compelling argument that perhaps this underpayment of employee entitlements is in fact “a symptom of a franchise model where the franchisee financial model doesn’t deliver”.

The article considers a chronology of events in the 7-Eleven story. How in “2001 the franchisees were forced 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.”

Franchisors who claim ignorance to a franchisee underpaying their staff should not be believed. The franchisor controls every aspect of the franchisees operations, including their stores financial performance and operating expenses. And yet franchisors continually turn a blind eye to the systemic abuses of employee entitlements until the issue receives outside attention. Then they come in hard – against their franchisee.

An article on BlueMauMau comments on the determination of the Fair Work regulator to conduct their job and compares their efforts to the ACCC. The Fair Work regulator has reacted promptly and efficiently to the complaints of employee underpayment, “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.”

The ACCC continues to do very little to regulate the sector.

The article continues:

“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.”

One would have to agree.