2 for 1 Plant-Based Burgers (Buy One, Get One Free) @ Grill'd (Mondays & Dine-in Only, Free Membership Required)


Got this in the email…


Grab a mate and get 2-for-1 plant-based burgers on Mondays.

Take a day off meat. It's not only good for your body, it's good for Mother Earth. Our plant-based patties use less water and energy to produce, so making the switch for a day is a delish way to do good for the planet. So, pair up with a partner and get 2 plant-based burgers for the price of 1 on Mondays.

Join Relish for the unique barcode

Dine-in for a plant-based burger and we'll shout you another one*.

To claim, scan the barcode found below or in your Grill'd App when you're at the till.

Full Terms

Meat-Free Monday: Offer is valid from all Grill’d restaurants. Valid to Relish members who dine-in on Monday and order a plant-based burger. Offer is for a free plant-based burger with the purchase of a plant-based burger. Plant based burger range includes; Beyond Vegan Cheeseburger, Garden Goodness, Vegan Garden Goodness, Field Day, Mitey Mushroom, Beyond Simply Grill'd, Beyond Garden Goodness, Beyond Chipotle, Beyond Simply Grill'd Vegan and Beyond Garden Goodness Vegan. Must present and scan Relish promotional barcode found in email, or in Grill’d App at the time of payment for dine-in orders. Offer not valid for takeaway, online ordering, @table ordering or for delivery. Replica or forged versions of the barcode will not be accepted. Not valid in conjunction with any other offer. Offer valid for Mondays. Management reserve the right to discontinue this offer at any time.

Related Stores



  • Are they any good?

    • I am a staunch meat eater and I was very pleasantly surprised at how good they were.

      • I was an unethical meat eater (dog cat snake turtle you name it). Now I'm moving slowly to wild meat (kangaroo emu etc.) and wild seafood to reduce my carbon footprint. Sadly this bullshit gov. is said to be heavily funded by the cattle industry and keep toughening regulations on fishing. It got to the stage that many many fishermen gave up on fishing (my neighbour is a stellar example).

        I have not been here long enough to understand sustainability but it struck me every time thinking of 40,000-year history of First Australians. What did they eat back then before cattle was introduced? Must have been plenty of seafood and wild meat. There weren't much (if any) fishing rules back then.

        Are fishing rules now for sustainability of seafood or sustainability of cattle industry bottom line ?

        • The population of Australia has grown significantly since colonisation.

          Unfortunately the ocean doesn't contain an infinite supply of fish, and over-fishing is a real concern since humans are able to improve techniques used for catching fish, while the fish don't reproduce and mature any faster.

          There are also issues with ghost nets which are often cast off from illegal fishing vessels.

          If you're concerned about your carbon footprint, then ocean acidification and may also be a concern.

          Add this all up and you can see how fish are living in a more hostile environment than they were even 100 years ago, and the trend doesn't appear to be reversing any time soon.

          • @BeepBoop: without historical data that goes back to 40-50,000 years, it is hard to tell whether modern Australians in 250+ years consume more seafood than first Australians in 40,000+ years. One thing is clear that meat producers have made billions in those 250+ years so they're not going to give up on the opportunity. Similar story with the coal miners vs renewables.

            • @PAPower: You don't really need historical data going back 40-50,000 years. The absolute quantity of seafood consumed over two extremely different time periods isn't really relevant, what needs to be examined is the rate of depletion. Fish aren't reproducing and maturing any faster, and we're catching far more, far faster. This is well documented, not just in Australia, but around the world. If you're familiar with "the tragedy of the commons" I'd invite you to consider that in the context of unregulated fishing in a globalised capitalist world.

              The fishing industry in Australia has also made many billions of dollars in that timeframe.

              I'd appreciate if you could provide any evidence at all regarding your statement " this bullshit gov. is said to be heavily funded by the cattle industry and keep toughening regulations on fishing".

              • @BeepBoop: I don't have any evidence unfortunately. Call me conspiracy or baseless claim or Trump wannabe, whatever you like. The thing is no one can justify these fishing regulations rather than saying that fish is being depleted. Do you see / Can you weigh how much fish is there in the ocean? Or you choose to blindly believe in what 'they' tell you. How are these following rules justified?

                • Snapper can only be caught after 12.30pm. Why is it not 1pm or 1.30pm ?
                • Minimum size for a blue swimmer is 11 cm. Why is it not 12 or 10.5 cm ?
                • Murray cod can be caught in Murray river in SA but not VIC. What the hell ?

                One thing is that it appears all governments are corrupted, whether state or federal level. So if they're there to protect cattle industry bottom line then it isn't too much a farfetch theory.
                You must have heard of Badgery Creek Airport deal between NSW gov and the Leppington Pastoral Company, or VIC gov (Daniel Andrews) arranged multi-million dollar private security contract via text in 15 minutes. Apparently they had kickbacks from these private companies, big time. But who could prove it? Who has the evidence? Will the media go even near and investigate it?

                If you or me were in the same position as Daniel Andrews or NSW Gov, could we resist the temptation of these million-dollar deals and kickbacks?

                • @PAPower: Mate I just want to see a deal on a plant based burger. Get outta here.

                • @PAPower: Many bag limits and catch sizes were determined a long time ago in an arbitrary manner due to some people raping and pillaging the waterways of Australia and fish stocks declining. There definitely could be a review of bag limits and fish sizes to make them more in line with what the science says, but that doesn't mean the rules are utter crap.

                  There are some fishermen out there (I guess you'd be one) that just want scoop up as much as they can get and to hell with anyone else. It's this sort of greed that depletes fish stocks. Take what need within the prescribed limits and leave some for someone else.

                  • @sitdowndisco: Sorry bargain-hunter cousins that I bothered you. I am outta here.
                    Hopefully the frustration and/or facts I shared with you wouldn't turn you off.

                • +2 votes

                  @PAPower: Lmao as someone who works in waterways management let me explain some of these rules and what might be behind them. It's astonishing that people just question stuff without any reason other than "it feels wrong and silly".

                  Snapper can only be caught after 12.30pm. Why is it not 1pm or 1.30pm ?

                  I have no idea. It's likely something to do with which snapper is active early in the morning. Perhaps young snapper are active in the morning and catching them would impact on the growth of the species? Perhaps the morning is when something to do with mating or egg laying occurs? Perhaps the morning is when most fishers are out so preventing morning catches is simpler than making a specific rule of quantity or size.

                  Minimum size for a blue swimmer is 11 cm. Why is it not 12 or 10.5 cm ?

                  Because a fisheries scientist and public servant determined that this was the best way to mitigate risk to the species. Think it through, again it's likely to do with not catching young fish that need to grow and reach reproductive size etc

                  Murray cod can be caught in Murray river in SA but not VIC. What the hell ?

                  It's probably again due to breeding. Fish move up the system to breed in flood events. Most of the SA murray isn't breeding ground as far as I know. It's safer to let fishers catch in SA as they are less likely to catch fish while they are in a breeding phase. Murray cod are endangered and it's wise to be risk-averse in the management of the species.

                  As with most government rules, they aren't out to get you or exist just because. They are (generally) based in science, despite the best attempts of current ideologues. Some rules might seem weird and arbitrary if you're not familiar with the system they operate in, but rest assured they are there for a reason (most of the time).

                  • @DisabledUser220804: Thanks for your contribution. I dare to say that scientists are (generally) funded by governments / organisations with political agenda.
                    Don't you think 'science' is a religion itself ?


                      @PAPower: Lmao a fisheries management scientist employed by the state of new south wales will of course be funded by government.

                      I'd love to know what you think the political agenda behind catch limits might be. Don't you think politicians would aim to please fishers? Not discriminate against them?

                      When considering whether an agenda or bias may be at play I generally think about what a party has to gain from such an agenda or bias. What do you think the NSW government might gain from limiting catch of particular fish species? Do you think it's more likely that a political agenda is at play, or that there is relevant scientific rationale backing up a position?

                      I don't think science is a religion and you'd have to be pretty blind to think in such terms. There is no similarity.

                      • @DisabledUser220804: I 'think' the gain for government is from profits of cattle/meat industry.
                        Again, I 'think' governments would prefer cattle to aquaculture because pastorals own heaps of land whilst fisheries are not likely to own much land.



                          @PAPower: I mean it's a bit of a stretch don't you think mate? What percentage impact do you think catch limits have on the value of the fishing industry vs what small benefits to pastoral agriculture (which is also hamstrung by government-backed water science: see limits on take and storage of water)?

                          And considering what marginal benefit there may be to agriculture, is it more likely that low level government workers like me have put into place unscientific rules on catch at the behest of our overlords? Like there are so many checks and balances along the road to a rule being in place. It's quite hard to be corrupt by MAKING rules. It's very easy to be corrupt by knowing how to avoid them, however.

        • +6 votes

          There's also billions more people in the world eating fish than back then. Unfortunately international waters are hard to regulate so sustainability is a serious issue.

          So much so that virtually every economics text book in print uses the sustainability crisis in fishing to explain multiple concepts, particularly the 'prisoners dilemma' regarding the abuse of open access resources.

        • There weren't much (if any) fishing rules back then.

          They weren't stupid. They didn't kill/eat small fish before they could breed. They also caught selectively, they didn't just drag a giant net behind a trawler.

          You might want to have a look how unsustainable fishing is working out overseas.

    • Yeah I went vego last year and I don’t miss meat burgers at all, these scratch the itch. The only meat I really miss is steak and German sausages… no good replicas for those yet!

    • The only burger I ever really order on the rare occasion I go to Grill'd is the Garden Goodness - I'm a meat eater but I really love that burger!

      • Yeah the Beyond Garden Goodness is my go to as well. Super tasty and full of good stuff.

        I’ve stopped scanning my membership barcode at Grill’d though. Whenever I try to use a benefit like free drink, they can’t do it for some reason and say they think I need the app. Well I’m not going to install a useless app just for a single shop membership.

        I think I deleted the Grill’d email for this deal.

    • Pretty good, even better if you get one with Beyond pattie.

    • Their regular burgers suck, so wouldn't be hard to be better.

    • Yeah, they're our go to at Grill'd now. Just don't get the vegan cheese.

    • Not as good as real meat patties. I'd say its around 70% as good as real meat. It should only be an option if you dont want to eat meat or if its 30% cheaper than meat options.

  • Not targerted, just need to be a relish member.
    From the T&Cs: "Meat-Free Monday: Offer is valid from all Grill’d restaurants. Valid to Relish members who dine-in on Monday and order a plant-based burger. "

  • +22 votes

    Awesome. I find their plant based burgers to be better than their regular burgers. I’m not vegan or even vego.

  • I love Grill'd but haven't tried their plant based burgers yet.

    Garden Goodness and Beyond Garden Goodness look awesome.

    If I don't like the plant based patties I will start getting Garden Goodness burgers with Beef or Lamb patties instead.

  • Do they cook the plant-based burgers on the same grill as the regular ones?

    • I how they would quarantine them on a separate grill also.

    • I think grilled uses frying pans to cook the food?

    • I want to know the same.

    • What is the significance of the grill?

      Looking forward to trying one, seems everyone here is pleasantly surprised by the taste.

      • Some vegetarians/vegans prefer to not have their food cooked in animal fats. I’m not phased (since the fat is incidental from other food on the same grill) but it bothers some people.

    • I have asked about this in store and they have a dedicated section seperate which is used for cooking them. There shouldn't be any cross contamination. I'd still ask in store to be doubly sure though if you are vegan.

      For those that asked, somewhere like Hungry Jack's don't use a separate grill for their plant based burgers so they are cooked on the same grill as meat products. I believe the exception are the vegan whoppers that we deep fried with the chips.

      Side note…the Beyond Meat patties are amazing!

    • When I’ve seen them cook them, they place a small grill on top of the grill, and the patties are cooked on that to avoid direct contact with the regular grill.

  • I wonder how many staff they’re underpaying to afford to offer this deal….

  • Am I allowed to say that grilled has the most boring burger ever?

  • Take a day off meat. It's not only good for your body, it's good for Mother Earth

    Is it?

    Specifically, Lustgarten says, plant-based patties have to nail “that rich, meaty mouthfeel that people are looking for.” For that, you need “a pretty significant” amount of fat — and “oil is a straight fat source.”
    For some brands, that means adding lots and lots of coconut oil — which is heavy in saturated fats, a “major driver of high LDL cholesterol,” says Heffron. “And as a cardiologist, LDL cholesterol is our enemy.”
    In fact, saturated fats are the reason he tells patients to avoid red meat to begin with. Eating too much of it, he explains, can lead to plaque buildup in your arteries. That can prevent blood from reaching the heart — and, in worst-case scenarios, it can cause a heart attack.
    Nutritional numbers suggest that plant-based burgers simply swap one kind of saturated fat for another — and, in some cases, they wind up having even more of that bad fat than animal meat. According to the US Department of Agriculture, 80-percent-lean ground beef — the lean-to-fat ratio recommended by chefs for making burgers — contains about 8.6 grams of saturated fat per ¼-pound portion. That’s comparable to the same amount of Impossible Burger, with 8 grams, and Beyond Beef, at 6.

    • Just to make mention, there are many other things to consider such as less water wastage and the fact that red meat is a carcinogen.

      https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1in3cancers/lifestyle-choic... processed meat increases your risk of bowel,diet can help prevent it from coming back%3F

    • coconut oil and saturated fat in general is fine, it's hydrogenated oils you need to look out for. They're highly inflammatory.

      in terms of body and planetary health the big thing to look out for with all these vegan fake alternative foods is that they're not loaded with Glyphosate soaked GMO crops, because that's what's killing the planet's precious topsoil and biodiversity.

      which is also the big problem with beef production in the world, cattle being fed corn and soy instead of being run on grassy pastures. Large herbivores roaming in herds, eating grass and crapping all over the place, is perfectly natural, sustainable, and highly beneficial to the environment. May or may not be good for beef prices however.

      • coconut oil and saturated fat in general is fine

        That's not what the cardiologist said

        coconut oil — which is heavy in saturated fats, a “major driver of high LDL cholesterol,” says Heffron. “And as a cardiologist, LDL cholesterol is our enemy.”

        That said it is bad

        eating grass and crapping all over the place, is perfectly natural, sustainable, and highly beneficial to the environment.

        Don't be stupid.
        Having thousands of cows confined to a small area crapping all over the place is not natural and pollutes waterways


        • one cardiologist, reading from the American Heart Association hymn sheet. Ever heard of getting a second opinion? I didn't come up with this idea myself, plenty of GPs, scientists and yes, even cardiologists are trying to ring the bell on saturated fats and hydrogenated oils.

          and so you keep them away from the riverbank, like they are (here) by the sounds of things. Its not rocket science. The ABC have dozens of reports on how successful regenerative farming practices have been where farmers have been brave enough to try it.

          part of the reason healthy soil is so important is because it absorbs far more water, reducing runoff, and hence contamination, erosion, etc.

      • Pretty sure glyphosate has been found in plenty of end products such as cereal (in the US) and is a suspected carcinogen

        Americans love feeding their cattle corn for better yield, even though grass fed beef is so much better for you (omega 3 / 6 profile)

        Unfortunately we are the problem, I don't think our population is sustainable with the currently implemented food growing practices

        • costs a lot of money to kick that "suspected" can down the road.


          absolutely staggering how much of this stuff douses crops around the world, only a matter of time before it meets the same fate as DDT, lead in petrol, etc. Its just a question of how much damage will be done in the meantime.

          if you're not interested in waiting for the gov to catch up on this issue, buy unprocessed, buy organic, buy grass fed, avoid GMOs.

        • Population is a huge factor in most issues affecting our civilisation as well as the world overall. Thing though is, most western countries population / birth rate is going down, the issue is with more of the developing countries and eastern countries where the population growth is out of control and then they migrate to the western countries. If we can get population growth worldwide under control then we can ease up on a lot of issues around the world. Other possibility although right now not possible is to colonise other planets. Most science fiction authors who were also scientists back in the day felt this was the only real fix to population growth which is to spread the population out to other worlds.

    • Then there is the salt

      But faux-meat products like Beyond Burger aren’t perfect. “They’re highly-processed foods and typically are high in sodium, which could be a problem for people with high blood pressure,” she adds.
      Per four-ounce uncooked Beyond Burger patty, you’ll get
      Sodium: 380 mg
      Compare that to four ounces of raw beef (80 percent lean):
      Sodium: 75 mg

      • Big Mac sodium 460mg

        • That includes the bun, sauce and everything else in the Big Mac.

          So 1 Beyond Burger patty nearly has as much salt as an entire burger

      • Except a beef patty at any restraunt isn't just raw beef (especially not 80% lean). That's not a valid comparison.

        Check out Woolies basic beef patty.

        430 mg of Sodium in a 100 gram patty.


        • Except a beef patty at any restraunt isn't just raw beef (especially not 80% lean). That's not a valid comparison.

          Raw is a fair comparison. Comparing cooked is unfair because you lose moisture depending on how long you cook it for.

          Check out Woolies basic beef patty.

          I don't think many restaurants serve those, or even use pre made ones as it is cheaper to make your own and they are unique to the restaurant.

          430 mg of Sodium in a 100 gram patty.

          Most of that comes from the 27% of things that aren't beef, and the added salts

          Australian Beef (73%), Water, Rice Flour, Soy Fibre (Soybean), Maltodextrin (Maize), Salt, Maize Flour, Vegetable Oil, Dehydrated Vegetables (Onion Garlic), Acidity Regulators (262, 331), Spices (Paprika, Pepper, Chilli, Nutmeg), Mineral Salts (451, 450, 500), Preservative (223), Fermented Red Rice, Sugar, Antioxidant (301), Dextrose (Tapioca, Maize), Natural Colour (Paprika Oleoresins)

    • The Grill'd Beyond Burger (unhealthiest vego option) has the same saturated fat and total fat as the healthiest Grill'd beef option. All the other Grill'd beef burgers contain more total fat and saturated fat.

      Maybe you should have checked the Grill'd nutritional info before posting an New York Post article.

      • I'm not sure what there is to not understand… so you're saying that if something tastes good, and your only objection to it is how it is sourced (breeding / killing animals) then you must also choose to not like the taste? Why?

        I love the taste of meat, I hate how it gets on my plate… if there were two meals in front of you and both tasted exactly the same, would you choose the one that requires an animal be bred / killed or the one which is sourced from plants? It's a no brainer for me.

        • Well said. It's one of the dumbest anti-vegan takes ever and yet it comes up all the time..

        • Fair enough - it was a question I'eve been asking myself for some time - thank you for answering!