United Voice v The Geo Group Australia Pty Ltd Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre

[2014] FWC 1027

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

United Voice
v
The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd - Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre
(B2014/503)

Corrections and detentions
COMMISSIONER BOOTH	BRISBANE, 11 FEBRUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd - Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre.

[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 The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Applicant has filed their submission and witness statement in line with the Directions. The Employer has provided correspondence received on 7 February 2014 advising that it does not object to the application, however the Employer contested the order in relation to the questions posed by the Applicant.

[3] In the correspondence provided, the Employer sought clarification in relation to questions 9, 10 and 11 of the draft order.

[4] In response the Applicant provided an amended draft order on the 10 February 2014.

[5] The Employer in an email dated 10 February 2014 advised that they agree with the Applicant on the intent and wording of questions 9 and 10 but still have an issue with question 11. In particular, the words “other interested parties”. This issue was addressed in a further amended draft order submitted by the Applicant on 11 February 2014.

[6] The Employer consented to the further amended draft order with the amendment to question 11 in an email dated 11 February 2014.

[7] 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.

[8] 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 [PR547657] based on the further amended draft 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, an organisation representing employees, sought to conduct a protected action ballot at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, operated by The Geo Group Australia Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute involved the employees' desire to take industrial action, which necessitated a ballot as per the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act, specifically in relation to the definition of "protected action" and the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the provisions of the Corrections Act 1997 (Vic) and the Corrections Regulations 2017 (Vic) precluded or limited the ability of the employees to conduct the ballot. The interplay between federal industrial law and state correctional legislation was central to the court's consideration.

The court examined the definitions and procedural requirements for protected action as set out in the Fair Work Act. It found that the proposed ballot complied with these requirements, except for certain aspects that needed to be adjusted to accommodate the unique environment of a correctional facility. The court held that while the Corrections Act and Regulations imposed restrictions on activities within the correctional centre, they did not entirely preclude the employees' right to conduct a ballot. The court issued directions to ensure the ballot could proceed in a manner that complied with both federal and state laws, allowing for the protection of both the rights of the employees and the operational requirements of the correctional centre.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established