Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd v Spiro Nikolov, Richard Beare, Tony Webb, Norm Murray, Paul Creighton, Daryl Ackers

[2024] FWC 3452

[2024] FWC 3452

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.240—Bargaining dispute

Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd
v

Spiro Nikolov, Richard Beare, Tony Webb, Norm Murray, Paul Creighton, Daryl Ackers

(B2024/1437)

COMMISSIONER HUNT BRISBANE, 11 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with a bargaining dispute

1. On 4 November 2024, Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd (Surfside) made an application under s.240 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a dispute with respect to a proposed enterprise agreement to cover Surfside and its employees engaged as Bus Drivers, Cleaner/Refuellers and Cleaner – Leading Hands across the Gold Coast and northern New South Wales regions.

1. The Respondents to the application are Mr Sprio Nikolov, Mr Richard Beare, Mr Tony Webb, Mr Norm Murray, Mr Paul Creighton and Mr Daryl Ackers (collectively, the Respondents). The Respondents are employee bargaining representatives for the proposed agreement. The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia is a union bargaining representative for the proposed agreement, and though not named in Surfside’s application, was involved in the proceedings under s.240 of the Act.

1. The employees are currently employed pursuant to the Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd Union Enterprise Agreement 2018. The parties have been bargaining for a new agreement since May 2022 and have met on no less than 40 occasions.

1. Four ballots have been put by Surfside to employees. In the August 2024 ballot, a majority of employees voted yes to make an agreement. However, Surfside withdrew its application for approval as there were concerns around ineligible casual employees having voted for the agreement.

1. In the October 2024 ballot, the result was approximately 51% no, 49% yes. 

1. Recent ballots have been conducted electronically by CorpVote.

1. Since early 2023, Mr Murray and employees for whom he is a bargaining representative have been taking protected industrial action.

1. Surfisde’s s.240 application was allocated to me on 5 November 2024. I listed the matter for an in-person conference on 20 November 2024. A further in-person conference was held on 4 December 2024.

1. At the conferences on 20 November and 4 December 2024, the parties engaged in meaningful bargaining discussions. At the conference on 4 December 2024, Surfside committed to improving its earlier offer by including in the proposed agreement:

·an increase to the casual loading for bus drivers from 23% to 25%, with back payment effective from the first full pay period on or after 1 July 2024; and

·a grandfathering of the weekly payment of wages to current casual employees, such that casual employees engaged prior to the proposed agreement’s commencement will continue to be paid weekly, while new casual employees will be paid fortnightly.

1. Surfside has now commenced an access period and has provided employees with a copy of the proposed agreement. Following the access period, eligible employees will be requested to vote whether to approve the agreement.

1. The timing of the vote is important. The access period runs throughout the last week of the school year in Queensland. If the vote is not conducted now, Surfside would be unlikely to put an agreement to a vote of employees until February 2025 when casual school bus drivers return to work. 

1. With regard to the terms of the proposed agreement, Surfside is predominantly funded in respect of this work (other than charter work) by the Queensland and New South Wales State Governments. In recent times, considerable increases in rates of pay have been achieved through various negotiations and lobbying, and these have been passed on in principle to employees.  It has been flagged that if an agreement is not made in the near future, the increased rates currently being paid in principle could be at some risk.

1. Given the very extensive bargaining to-date, and having engaged with the parties recently, I recommend that employees voting on the agreement vote yes to make the agreement. I do not anticipate that any further protected industrial action or bargaining negotiations will yield a more favourable offer for employees.

1. 
   Further, I consider it is sensible and transparent to conduct the vote electronically by CorpVote.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR782318>