United Voice v Wilson Security Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1215

United Voice v Wilson Security Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1215

The Award grants employers discretion to allocate overtime hours within a roster cycle, and there is no express or implied restriction in the Award requiring all ordinary hours to be worked before overtime is payable; the employer's practice is consistent with the Award text and industrial context.

Parties
First Applicant: United Voice; Second Applicant: Norman Davis; Respondent: Wilson Security Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Industrial Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Award Interpretation, Rostering, Overtime Payments, Penalty Rates
Industrial Law Employment Law Award Interpretation Rostering Overtime Payments Penalty Rates

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Voice

First Applicant

Norman Davis

Second Applicant

Wilson Security Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employer may allocate overtime hours in a roster before ordinary hours are fully worked under the Security Services Award 2010; and whether the Award prohibits this practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Award grants employers discretion to allocate overtime hours within a roster cycle, and there is no express or implied restriction in the Award requiring all ordinary hours to be worked before overtime is payable; the employer's practice is consistent with the Award text and industrial context.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.