United Voice v Geo Group Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 9540

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Voice
v
GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd
(B2013/1544)

Corrections and detentions
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 5 DECEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by United Voice (the Applicant). The Applicant seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Applicant has filed their submissions in line with the Directions and a copy was provided to the Respondent.

[3] The Respondent provided correspondence received on 3 December 2013 advising that it will not be contesting the application, however it is on the understanding that it is as the terms sought in the amended Draft order provided by the Applicant on 3 December 2013.

[4] The amendment in the Draft order is to question 4 which is the removal of reference to “Periodic bans on KPIs, and, Indefinite bans on KPIs”. It is noted that both the Applicant and Respondent consent to this amendment.

[5] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[6] I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR545336] based on the Amended draft order provided by the Applicant will issue at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Voice, a union, took legal action against the Geo Group Australia Pty Ltd, an employer, in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to conduct a ballot among the employees regarding protected industrial action. The employer contested the ballot, arguing that the union had not complied with the necessary procedural requirements. The central issue before the Commission was whether the union had adhered to the procedural prerequisites outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 for organising a ballot of employees concerning protected action.

The Commission examined the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act, focusing on the requirements for conducting a lawful ballot. It was necessary to determine whether the union had correctly notified the employer, provided the requisite information to the employees, and ensured that the ballot process was conducted in a manner that was fair and transparent. The union argued that it had fulfilled all necessary obligations, while the employer claimed deficiencies in the notification and information provided. The Commission carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties and the legal standards applicable to the situation. Ultimately, the Commission found that the union had not fully complied with the procedural requirements for a lawful ballot. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application to conduct the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established