Serco Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 5075

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Serco Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2013/7563)

SERCO - UNITED VOICE FIONA STANLEY HOSPITAL AGREEMENT 2013

Health and welfare services
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN	PERTH, 26 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Serco - United Voice Fiona Stanley Hospital Agreement 2013.

[1] On 17 July 2013, Serco Australia Pty Ltd made application for approval of a greenfields agreement to be known as the Serco - United Voice Fiona Stanley Hospital Agreement 2013 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section and s.187 are met.

[3] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186 and 187, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[4] The Employer has declared that United Voice is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement, in relation to the work to be performed under the Agreement. United Voice has made a similar declaration. On that basis, I am satisfied that the provisions of s.187(5)(a) of the FW Act have been met.

[5] I am also satisfied, pursuant to s.187(5)(b) of the FW Act, that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[6] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act will operate from seven (7) days from the date of this Decision.

[7] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is .30 June 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Serco Australia Pty Ltd and United Voice, the union representing workers at Fiona Stanley Hospital. Serco sought approval for an agreement that would govern employment conditions for its staff at the hospital. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement provided adequate protections for employees' wages, conditions, and entitlements, and whether it allowed for proper representation and consultation processes. Additionally, the Commission had to consider if the agreement was fair and balanced in its treatment of both parties. The Commission examined the terms of the proposed agreement and the submissions made by both Serco and United Voice to ascertain if the agreement met the statutory criteria for approval.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed agreement was largely compliant with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It noted that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including provisions for minimum wages, penalty rates, leave entitlements, and other conditions that were in line with industry standards. The Commission also concluded that the agreement allowed for appropriate mechanisms for employee representation and consultation, which were critical for ensuring that employees' interests were adequately protected. Based on these findings, the Commission approved the Serco - United Voice Fiona Stanley Hospital Agreement 2013, stating that it was in the best interests of the employees.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the Serco - United Voice Fiona Stanley Hospital Agreement 2013, effective from the date of the decision. The Commission's approval meant that the agreement would now govern the employment conditions for Serco's staff at Fiona Stanley Hospital, providing a framework for fair and reasonable terms of employment, and ensuring that employees' rights and interests were protected.

Serco Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established