United Workers' Union v Serco Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 1113

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Serco Australia Pty Limited

(B2022/415)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 11 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Serco Australia Pty Limited

This is an application by the United Workers’ 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 Limited (Respondent).

On 10 May 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 Darren Roberts of the Applicant declared on 6 May 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 PR741464.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the United Workers' Union and Serco Australia Pty Limited arose in the Fair Work Commission, with the Union seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot involving employees of Serco Australia. The Union aimed to ballot its members regarding potential industrial action due to unresolved disputes over pay rates, conditions, and other employment-related matters. Serco Australia contested the Union's application, arguing that the proposed ballot was not in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union's application for the ballot complied with the statutory provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the Union had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act, and whether the proposed action was appropriately authorised. The Commission also needed to consider if the ballot notice and other procedural requirements were adequately fulfilled as prescribed by the Act.

The Fair Work Commission examined the Union's application and the evidence presented, focusing on whether the proposed industrial action was related to an existing industrial dispute. The Commission found that the Union had adequately demonstrated the existence of such a dispute and that the proposed ballot was appropriately authorised. The Commission concluded that the Union's application met the statutory requirements and approved the ballot. Consequently, the Union was authorised to conduct the proposed ballot of its members.

The Commission's final orders included the authorisation for the United Workers' Union to conduct a protected action ballot among its members employed by Serco Australia, subject to the compliance with the procedural requirements specified in the Fair Work Act. The Union was required to ensure that all communications and materials used in the ballot process were in accordance with the statutory guidelines. The decision allowed the Union to proceed with the ballot, enabling its members to express their views on potential industrial action.

United Workers' Union v Serco Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established