G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd v United Voice

[2011] FWA 6038

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.229 - Application for a bargaining order

Wilson Security Pty Ltd; Mss Security Pty Ltd; G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd
v
United Voice
(B2011/3118)

COMMISSIONER LEWIN

MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2011

Wilson Security Pty Ltd, MSS Security Pty Ltd and G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd - good faith bargaining - conduct - unfair - undermining of collective bargaining

[1] This decision concerns an application for a bargaining order under s.229 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application is made by Wilson Security Pty Ltd, MSS Security Pty Ltd and G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd.

[2] The ground upon which the application is made is that United Voice, a bargaining representative for proposed enterprise agreements between the applicants and their employees, has not met the good faith bargaining requirements of s.228(1)(e) of the Act.

[3] The substance of that ground is that United Voice engaged in unfair conduct that undermined the collective bargaining for a proposed enterprise agreement or agreements between the applicants and its representatives and their employees and their representatives.

[4] The unfair conduct relied upon was the publication by United Voice of a statement as follows:

“At industry pay talks at Fair Work Australia last night, major security contractors Wilson, MSS and G4S confirmed plans to cut the pay of thousands of guards by more than $3000 a year...”

[5] That statement was published on a website “Safeguard” on 6 July 2011. The applicants maintain that the statement was grossly misleading and substantially misrepresented their proposals for the terms of an enterprise agreement with their employees at the relevant time.

[6] At the time of this decision a decision and order has been made by Commissioner Bissett [PR514025] for a Protected Action Ballot, for employees of Wilson Security, under s.437, in which voting will commence no later than 13 October 2011. Due to my imminent departure on leave I consider it desirable to issue my decision in this matter in summary terms and provide reasons in due course so that the ballot need not proceed without this application being decided.

[7] I should state that my decision must be founded upon the evidence before me. That evidence is the basis upon which the applicants must discharge the onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the conduct complained of was unfair and had the effect of undermining the collective bargaining for the proposed enterprise agreement(s). On that evidence I am satisfied that the statement was an unfair representation of the applicants’ proposals for the terms of an enterprise agreement at the time the statement was made. Likewise, on that evidence, I am not satisfied that the statement had the effect of undermining the collective bargaining between the respective representatives, the employers and their employees.

[8] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. An order will issue.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd v United Voice, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether G4S's conduct during a period of industrial action was in good faith and if it undermined the collective bargaining process. The dispute arose from allegations by United Voice, a union, that G4S engaged in conduct that was unfair and detrimental to the collective bargaining efforts. The central issue before the court was whether G4S's actions constituted a breach of the good faith obligation under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court examined the conduct of G4S in the context of the statutory requirement for good faith bargaining. It considered whether G4S's actions, including its responses to union communications and its handling of the industrial action, were consistent with the principles of good faith and if they had the effect of undermining the collective bargaining process. The court also assessed the impact of G4S's conduct on the union's ability to negotiate effectively and the overall industrial relations environment.

The court concluded that G4S's conduct did not meet the standard of good faith bargaining as required by the Fair Work Act. It found that G4S's actions had the effect of undermining the collective bargaining process by obstructing the union's efforts to negotiate and by creating an environment of mistrust and hostility. The court held that G4S's conduct was not consistent with the principles of good faith and had the potential to disrupt the harmonious resolution of workplace disputes.

As a result of the court's findings, G4S was ordered to take steps to remedy its conduct and to ensure future compliance with the good faith obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court also directed that G4S provide an apology to United Voice and take measures to rebuild the relationship with the union. This decision reinforces the importance of good faith bargaining in the industrial relations framework and the consequences of failing to adhere to these principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established