Unite Union national director said a McDonald's statement yesterday on zero-hour contracts was ''completely misleading''.
He said the McDonald's proposal referenced in the release - ''80% security of hours up to a 40-hour cap, based on the average of the previous 12 weeks'' - was ''still very makeshift''.
''Whilst we were in the room [bargaining] with them, they released the statement,'' he said.
''It's nonsense.''
A McDonald's spokeswoman said the company was ''committed to reaching an agreement with Unite on security of hours''.
''Unite's public statements ... are a distraction to our new position around security of hours. We are not surprised they have found fault with our offer and still intend to strike on Wednesday, given they already had plans in place to do so.''
Mr Treen said that, at first glance, the McDonald's offer might appear identical to an agreement between Restaurant Brands and Unite last week, which was widely hailed to end zero-hour contracts for Restaurant Brands employees.
Both would guarantee employees 80% of an employee's hours over the past 12 weeks of employment.
However, the Restaurant Brands agreement was a guarantee of worked hours, whereas the McDonald's offer would only guarantee rostered hours.
The difference was significant, Mr Treen said.
''What they normally do is roster you on for significantly less than the hours you normally work, because they want you to be hungry for hours, so that when they ring you up to work, you come in.''
According to a Unite survey, ''usually workers do around 20% more than the hours they're rostered on for'', Mr Treen said.
Guaranteeing 80% of rostered hours offered no more wage security than the current situation, he said.
Strike actions were planned for around the country tomorrow, including a protest outside McDonald's Andersons Bay outlet at 5pm.
