CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Serco Australia Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2256

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v

Serco Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/1251)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 25 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Serco Asia-Pacific at Clarence Correctional Centre

This is an application by the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 19 August 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Jessica Epps of the Applicant declared on 18 August 2022, 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 PR745141.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing a ballot of employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd, who work at the Clarence Correctional Centre. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking permission to conduct a protected action ballot, typically a precursor to a strike or other industrial action. The respondent, Serco Australia Pty Ltd, did not oppose the application. The matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The key legal issue for the Vice President to determine was whether the CPSU had met the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Act. Specifically, the Vice President needed to ascertain whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Serco and if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, as required by section 443(1) of the Act. The Vice President considered the statutory declaration provided by Jessica Epps of the CPSU, which detailed the union's bargaining efforts and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement with Serco.

Upon reviewing the declaration and the other material before him, Vice President Catanzariti was satisfied that the CPSU had genuinely attempted to negotiate with Serco and that the statutory notification time had been met. The Vice President concluded that the CPSU had fulfilled the necessary requirements under the Act for the protected action ballot. Therefore, an order was issued allowing the ballot to proceed.

The final order, issued separately, granted the CPSU permission to conduct the protected action ballot as requested. This decision enables the CPSU to proceed with its planned industrial action, subject to the protections and requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established