United Workers' Union v Serco Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 128


[2025] FWC 128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v

Serco Australia Pty Ltd

(B2025/48)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 14 JANUARY 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd

  1. This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (UWU or 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 Australia Pty Ltd (Serco or Employer).

  1. On 14 January 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application as amended following discussions.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Surya Nagulapalli, Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the UWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Serco, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of  the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd (Fair Vote). Fair Vote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

  1. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 28 January 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR783274.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] This is, in effect, 9 working days from the making of the Order and was the date sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR783277>

Details
AGLC
United Workers' Union v Serco Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 128
Case
[2025] FWC 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union (UWU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, requesting a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Serco Australia Pty Ltd. The application was made to facilitate a ballot regarding potential protected industrial action. Serco did not object to the application after discussions with the FWC. As a result, the Deputy President Hampton decided to determine the matter based on the documents provided, without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the FWC included whether the UWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Serco and whether the notification time and other requirements under section 443 of the Fair Work Act had been met. The UWU provided a declaration from Surya Nagulapalli, an Organiser, outlining the bargaining efforts and the genuine attempts to reach an agreement with Serco. The FWC found that all requirements were met, including the notification time for the proposed agreement.

The FWC determined that the ballot would be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd, an approved ballot agent under section 468A of the Act. The closing date for voting was set at 28 January 2025, which also established the ballot period under section 448A(2) of the Act. A separate order was issued in PR783274, and the matter was assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act. The FWC also issued directions to ensure that all bargaining representatives were prepared for meaningful negotiations at the conference.

The FWC's decision was to grant the UWU's application for a protected action ballot order, with specific conditions on the timing and conduct of the ballot. The FWC's order facilitated the process for the employees to vote on potential industrial action, ensuring compliance with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.