Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd (SSDS)

[2015] FWC 918

[2015] FWC 918

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

FURTHER DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.120 - Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay

Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd (SSDS)
(C2014/6408, C2014/6409, C2014/6412, C2014/6384, C2014/6386, C2014/6388, C2014/6389, C2014/6390, C2014/6395, C2014/6397, C2014/6402 & C2014/6406)

COMMISSIONER ROE SYDNEY, 6 FEBRUARY 2015

Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment - NSW & ACT - Further Decision.

[1] Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd (SSDS) made a number of applications seeking to have the redundancy payments, due to a significant number of SSDS employees who were made redundant as a result of the loss of the defence contracts, reduced to nil, or an amount to be determined by the Fair Work Commission.

[2] On 28 January 2015 I issued a decision in respect to whether SSDS had obtained other acceptable employment with the NSW/ACT incoming contractors. 1 I determined that SSDS did not obtain acceptable alternative employment in respect to the incoming contractors except for MSS. In respect to MSS I determined that SSDS was not a strong moving force behind each of the SSDS employees being offered employment with MSS. I found that the actions of SSDS were insufficient to cause acceptable alternative employment to become available to each of the redundant employees. I was however satisfied that the actions of SSDS made a more significant difference to the likelihood of some employees being offered work than was the case with the other incoming contractors. There was no evidence which enabled me to identify any sub-group(s) where the actions of SSDS were a strong moving force behind their success but it is possible that they might be able to be identified.

[3] I provided SSDS with an opportunity to make further submissions about this matter. I listed the matter for a conference on 5 February 2015. At that conference SSDS advised that they did not wish to make further submissions that they obtained employment for certain sub-groups or individuals with MSS in respect to the NSW/ACT contracts. They also advised that they were not seeking to lead further evidence. In that situation I will conclude the matter by determining that SSDS did not obtain acceptable alternative employment for its employees employed under the NSW/ACT contracts with MSS.

[4] This determination is the settlement of the disputes under Section 739 as far as they relate to those who were offered employment with MSS. The applications under Section 120 are dismissed in so far as they relate to the NSW/ACT contracts and those who were offered employment with MSS.
[5] I have now made determinations in respect to all the applications made by SSDS concerning the loss of the defence contracts.

COMMISSIONER

 1   [2015] FWC 641.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR560832>