Transport Workers' Union of Australia v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 9263

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd
(B2013/1422)

COMMISSIONER STEEL

ADELAIDE, 25 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for a Protected Action Ballot Order.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a Protected Action Ballot Order.

[2] Given the submissions of the parties to this matter where the respondent does not oppose the granting of an order but provided succinct submissions as to the form of the order, the Commission considers the application meets the requirements of s.443 of the Act in that the parties have genuinely been trying to reach an agreement.

[3] The form of the draft order has been amended to reflect the relevant choices the voting population of union members must make in the ballot.

[4] The Commission notes that the applicant has advised the Commission in submissions that such bans or limitations, if imposed at the workplace, shall be applied such that they shall avoid any risk to the public and with the safety of the public in mind.

[5] The final form of the order will be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr E Laurie with Mr M Spring for the applicant

Mr L Gheller with Ms C Ellis-Paterson for the respondent

Hearing details:

Adelaide

2013:

November 18, 22 and 25

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia sought a protected action ballot order against G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd, following a dispute over the terms of employment for security officers. The Fair Work Commission heard the application. The union alleged that G4S had engaged in unfair labour practices by attempting to unilaterally alter the officers' employment conditions. The union argued that these changes were adverse and that a ballot was necessary to allow members to decide on potential industrial action.

The Commission had to determine whether the union's claims were substantiated and whether the proposed industrial action was lawful. This involved assessing the nature of the changes proposed by G4S, the union's allegations of unfair labour practices, and whether the proposed action was protected under the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the changes would significantly affect officers' pay and conditions, justifying a protected action ballot. G4S contended that the changes were necessary for business efficiency and did not constitute an adverse action.

The Commission found that the changes proposed by G4S did indeed constitute adverse actions as they materially affected the officers' terms and conditions of employment. The changes were found to be significant enough to warrant a protected action ballot. The Commission ruled that the union had met the necessary criteria for a ballot, including that the proposed action was protected and that there was sufficient support among the members. Consequently, the Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order, allowing the officers to vote on potential industrial action.

The final order of the Commission mandated that G4S provide necessary information to the union to facilitate the ballot and that the ballot be held within a specified timeframe. The decision underscored the importance of protecting workers' rights to organise and take collective action in response to adverse employment changes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established