Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Serco Australia Pty Limited T/A Serco Australia Summary

[2023] FWC 870

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Serco Australia Pty Limited T/A Serco Australia

(B2023/333)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Serco Australia Pty Limited

This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Serco Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 12 April 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Jason Carl Madsen of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An order has been separately issued in
PR761044.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Applicant) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Serco Australia Pty Limited (Respondent). The application was made to facilitate a proposed protected action ballot. On 12 April 2023, it was noted that Serco Australia Pty Limited did not object to the application, leading to the Deputy President's decision to proceed with the matter on the submitted documents without a hearing.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot, as outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, were satisfied. This involved examining the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and verifying if the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The court also had to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement.

In reaching the decision, the Deputy President reviewed the declaration provided by Mr Jason Carl Madsen of the Applicant. The declaration detailed the bargaining efforts and confirmed that the Applicant had been, and continued to be, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Based on this evidence, the Deputy President was satisfied that the requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. Consequently, an order was issued, separate from the application, in PR761044.

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Serco Australia Pty Limited T/A Serco Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established