Woolworths Just Proved Your "Manager" Title Means Nothing for Your Comp

The Federal Court just told Woolworths that calling someone a manager doesn't mean you can pay them differently if they're doing the same work as the people they manage. Shop-floor managers are sales assistants when it comes to comp calculations.

This should terrify every quota-carrying sales professional in ANZ.

Your title says Account Executive. Your LinkedIn says "Enterprise Sales." But what does your contract actually say about your base versus commission split? What happens when your company decides SDRs and AEs are doing "substantially similar work" and your OTE structure needs "harmonising"?

We've seen this play out already. Companies promoting top-performing SDRs to AE roles but keeping their comp structure suspiciously close to their old package. "It's a stepping stone role," they say. The Federal Court just proved that excuse doesn't fly when the work overlaps.

Here's what Woolworths got wrong: they assumed job titles create legal pay distinctions. They don't. The actual work does. And in B2B sales, the line between SDR, BDR, and AE work is blurrier than most comp plans admit.

Three things this ruling means for your comp:

1. Your promotion might not be a promotion. If your new AE role still has you doing 40% prospecting, don't be shocked when Finance reviews whether you're legally entitled to that enterprise comp structure.

2. Commission reviews are coming. Any company with overlapping sales roles just got a legal reason to "optimise" their comp plans. They'll call it compliance. You'll call it a pay cut.

3. Your manager can't protect you. Your CRO doesn't write Australian employment law. When Legal and Finance decide your title doesn't match your work for pay purposes, your quota doesn't matter.

The Optus fine was about consumer protection. This Woolworths ruling is about how you get paid. One of these directly impacts your mortgage.

Real talk: Get your employment contract reviewed by someone who understands current case law, not your mate who "knows startups." Because the court just proved that what your company calls you matters less than what you actually do.

And if your OTE seems too good to be true for your actual responsibilities? It probably is, and there's now legal precedent to "correct" it.