United Voice v Serco Group Pty Ltd (No.2)

Case

[2018] FCCA 3680

12 December 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
United Voice v Serco Group Pty Ltd (No.2) [2018] FCCA 3680 [2018] FCCA 3680 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Voice, the applicant, brought proceedings against Serco Group Pty Ltd, the respondent, alleging contraventions of the National Employment Standards (NES) concerning the failure to pay a remote district allowance to 13 identified employees and an unknown number of other employees. The matter came before Judge Young in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Serco had contravened the NES by failing to pay the remote district allowance to the identified employees, and whether United Voice was entitled to represent the interests of other employees who may have been similarly affected by this contravention. The Court was also required to determine whether an audit order was appropriate to ascertain the full extent of the contravention.

Judge Young found that Serco had contravened the NES in relation to the 13 known employees. Crucially, the Court held that United Voice was entitled to represent the interests of other employees who had been affected by the contravention, even though their identities and the precise number were not yet known. This entitlement was based on the union's role in representing its members and those in the relevant industrial instrument.

Consequently, the Court made orders for Serco to pay the outstanding remote district allowance to the 13 identified employees. Furthermore, an audit order was issued, requiring Serco to conduct an audit to identify all other employees who had been affected by the failure to pay the allowance, and to subsequently make good any further underpayments.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Breach

  • Standing

  • Remedies

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

4