DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Serco Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd
(B2020/334)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Serco Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector 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 Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 23 June 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms L Pearce 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR720436.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission was brought by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) against Serco Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd, concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The dispute centred around the legitimacy and timing of the ballot, which the union intended to conduct to explore potential industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with resolving this matter, given its jurisdiction over workplace relations and industrial disputes.

The central legal issues that the Commission had to address were whether the ballot was appropriately timed and whether the union had acted in compliance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot complied with section 397 of the Act, which sets out the requirements for protected action ballots, and whether the union's actions were consistent with the good faith obligations under section 4 of the Act. The Commission also had to consider if there were any procedural fairness issues regarding the timing and notification of the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had not complied with the requirements of section 397, as the ballot was not conducted at a time that allowed for proper consideration by the employees. The Commission found that the union had failed to give adequate notice and had not provided sufficient information for employees to make an informed decision. Furthermore, the Commission held that the union's actions did not meet the good faith obligations under the Act, as they did not allow for proper consultation and communication with the employees. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot was invalid and could not proceed.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the proposed protected action ballot was declared invalid. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of adherence to the statutory requirements for conducting such ballots and underscored the necessity of good faith in union actions. The Commission did not make any further orders beyond invalidating the ballot.

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Serco Traffic Camera Services (Vic) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established