United Voice v Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd

The Federal Court of Australia considered a dispute between United Voice, a union, and Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd (Serco), a company providing services to the Australian Defence Force. The core of the disagreement concerned the interpretation of a clause within a collective agreement that stipulated a minimum number of hours for certain employees. United Voice alleged that Serco had breached this agreement by failing to roster employees for the minimum hours, thereby impacting their entitlements.

The central legal question before the Court was whether Serco's rostering practices complied with the minimum guaranteed hours provision in the applicable enterprise agreement. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the agreement imposed an obligation on Serco to *provide* a minimum number of hours of work, or merely to *pay* for those hours if they were not worked, and whether the wording of the clause supported the former interpretation.

Judge Neville found in favour of United Voice, holding that the relevant clause in the enterprise agreement imposed a positive obligation on Serco to roster employees for the minimum guaranteed hours. The Court reasoned that the language of the clause, particularly the phrase "guaranteed a minimum of 30 hours per week," indicated an intention to ensure actual work was provided, not merely a financial entitlement. This interpretation was supported by the context of the agreement as a whole, which aimed to provide stable and predictable employment for the affected workers. Consequently, Serco's failure to roster employees for the minimum hours constituted a breach of the agreement.