United Voice v Sodexo Australia Pty Ltd T/A Sodexo Australia

United Voice, an organisation representing the interests of employees in the food and catering industry, appealed a decision of Commissioner Roe from October 2016 against Sodexo Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Sodexo Australia, before the Full Bench of the Federal Circuit and Administrative Appeals Court in Melbourne. The appeal concerned an industrial dispute involving the application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009, specifically the provisions governing the right to take protected industrial action. The crux of the matter was whether certain actions taken by Sodexo Australia constituted protected action, entitling employees to the protections afforded under the legislation.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the definitions of "protected action" under the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations. Central to the dispute was the question of whether actions taken by Sodexo Australia employees during a protest, which included the distribution of literature and the presence of placards, qualified as protected industrial action. The court needed to consider whether these actions were directly related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment and whether they complied with the requirements of the legislation, including the need for prior notice to the employer.

In examining the evidence, the court assessed the nature of the protest and the context in which it occurred. It considered whether the actions were genuinely related to employment terms and conditions and whether they were part of a broader campaign that could be considered protected industrial action. The court also examined the specific requirements of the Fair Work Act, including the necessity for employees to provide reasonable notice of their intention to take protected action. Ultimately, the court found that the actions taken by Sodexo Australia employees did not meet the criteria for protected industrial action. The protest involved actions that were not directly related to employment terms and conditions and did not comply with the notice requirements under the legislation.

The court concluded that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The decision of Commissioner Roe was upheld, and Sodexo Australia was not found to have engaged in protected industrial action. Consequently, the employees involved were not entitled to the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act for the actions taken during the protest.