United Voice v Serco Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 2086

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Voice
v
Serco Australia Pty Ltd
(B2013/762)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 8 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the United Voice. The United Voice seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd who work at Southern Queensland Correctional Centre.

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] 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.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR535436, based on the draft provided by United Voice 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 representing the employees, brought an application against Serco Australia Pty Ltd for an order to allow a proposed protected action ballot. The employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd sought to vote on taking protected action in the form of a strike. The Fair Work Commission was the court in this matter.

The legal issues for the Commission to determine were whether the proposed protected action was in relation to a “work, employment or workplace matter” and whether the proposed action was protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also had to consider whether the proposed action met the requirements of section 375 of the Act, including whether the ballot was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the union’s constitution.

The Commission found that the proposed protected action was in relation to a work, employment or workplace matter, and that the proposed action was protected action as defined by the Act. The Commission noted that the proposed action was in response to Serco’s decision to reduce the employees’ shift differential payments and that the employees had previously taken protected action in relation to this matter. The Commission found that the proposed action met the requirements of section 375 of the Act, including that the ballot was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the union’s constitution.

The Commission ordered that Serco allow the employees to hold a protected action ballot in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the union’s constitution. The Commission noted that the proposed action was not an industrial action ballot, but rather a protected action ballot, and that the requirements for a protected action ballot were less stringent than those for an industrial action ballot. The Commission also noted that the proposed action was not in relation to an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, and that the employees were not seeking to take industrial action. The Commission found that the employees had a right to take protected action and that Serco was required to allow the employees to exercise that right.

United Voice v Serco Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established