the brief.
franchise disclosure register – expanded obligations and risks for 2025.
tyson brennan.
mervin laureano. 01 july 2025.
franchise disclosure register – expanded obligations and risks for 2025
in March 2025, the Federal Government announced that it would allocate $7.1 million over two years to allow the ACCC to deliver a stronger enforcement of the Franchising Code and continue its protection of small businesses by competition and consumer laws. And, in late June, franchisors Cash Converters Pty Ltd and Mobile Travel Agents Pty Ltd were ordered to each pay a $16,500 penalty, after the Commission issued both companies with an infringement notice, alleging that they each breached the Franchising Code of Conduct. In its decision, the ACCC signalled its ongoing commitment to monitor the franchising sector’s compliance with the Franchising Code of Conduct, focusing on the obligations around the Register.
the franchising code of conduct
The ACCC is responsible for regulating industry codes that are prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act, including the Franchising Code of Conduct. The Franchising Code of Conduct is a mandatory national code that regulates the conduct of franchising participants towards each other. It sets out rules and regulations relating to:
franchisors’ disclosure requirements
- Approaches to disputes between parties
- Circumstances whereby franchisors must include or update information on the Register
- Ultimately, the ACCC has the power to issue an infringement notice when it has reasonable grounds to believe a person or business has contravened certain provisions of an industry code.
franchise disclosure register
Introduced in 2022, the Franchise Disclosure Register requires franchisors to upload key disclosure information to a publicly accessible online registered that is managed by the Australian Government. As such, the Register promotes transparency between parties and reinforces franchisor obligations of publishing information that is accurate and up to date.
ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh has stated that the requirement ‘ensures prospective franchisees and other stakeholders have clear and accurate information to help them make informed business decisions, including whether to enter into a franchise agreement.
- The concern that granting a request could create a harmful precedent for the company was ultimately futile.
Naden v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Limited as Trustee for the Catholic Schools Broken Bay Trust [2025] FWCFB 82
This decision by the Full Bench of the Commission held that a school wrongly refused a teacher’s flexible working arrangement request, because its response did not meet all of the requirements set out in the Act.
Under s 65A(1), if an employee submits a request for flexible working arrangements, the employer must provide a written response within 21 days. The employer’s response must indicate the outcome of the request – and where it is refused, the reasons for the refusal.
In May 2024, Ms Naden, working as a Religious Education Coordinator, commenced parental leave, planning to return to work in January 2025 for the start of the new school year. Accordingly, Ms Naden made a request for a flexible working arrangement. Here, she sought to work part time in Terms 1 and 2, and job-share her coordinator role, then return full time in Terms 3 and 4. Ms Naden also stated that the request was made because she could only secure childcare arrangements on two weekdays.
In November 2024, the School advised Ms Naden that it was unable to accommodate the Flex request as she held the executive role of Coordinator. Instead, the School provided her with different options – including that she work part time as a classroom teacher (i.e. not in the Coordinator role) in Terms 1 and 2, then return to the role in Terms 3 and 4, coinciding with her full time load. Ms Naden was, however, unable to find a policy which prohibited her from working part time in her executive role, prompting her request for the School to produce written reasons for refusing her request.
Ms Naden brought the issue to the Commission, where she failed at the first instance. At the expedited appeal, however, the Full Bench of the FWC held that the School failed to acknowledge the consequences of the refusal on the employee, which is required by s 65A(3)(c). The Full Bench noted the School was required to have regard to the consequences before it could consider any refusal based on reasonable business grounds. Accordingly, the School was not entitled to refuse the request and Ms Naden was entitled to return to work in accordance with her proposed request.
key takeaways from the cases
For employers, the recent decisions highlighted the following:
- Legal compliance: employers should constantly be aware of their employment law obligations arising from the Fair Work Act and its various instruments (National Employment Standards, Modern Awards etc.)
- Clear reasoning: employers must provide clear, tailored and specific responses to requests, ensuring that they articulate the reasons for a refusal. Failing to do so will render them non-compliant with their obligations according to the Act.
- Documentation: proper documentation of all communications, decisions, conversations and notes of informal correspondence are valuable to ensuring an employer stays compliant.
