United Workers' Union (108V) v MSS Security Pty Ltd Trading AS MSS Security
Citation: [2026] FWC 1824
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a Security Officer Level 2 at MSS Security Pty Ltd since June 2012, believes his position should be classified as Security Officer Level 3 and seeks backpay. He raised this dispute through the United Workers’ Union (UWU) under the MSS Security Enterprise Agreement (QLD) 2020–2024. The Fair Work Commission conciliation was unsuccessful, leading to a site visit where evidence was presented by both parties including the Applicant and representatives from MSS.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission has not yet made a final decision on whether the Applicant should be classified as Security Officer Level 3. the Deputy President considered the Enterprise Agreement classifications for Levels 1, 2, and 3, along with previous Full Bench authority regarding similar classification structures at Thales Bendigo. Further consideration is needed to determine if the Applicant’s work meets the requirements of a Level 3 classification.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure job classifications accurately reflect duties and responsibilities as defined in enterprise agreements. Regularly review employee roles and consider whether they align with their assigned classifications, especially when referencing previous decisions or authorities. Be prepared to provide evidence supporting existing classifications if challenged.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe their job classification is incorrect should raise the dispute through the appropriate channels outlined in their enterprise agreement. Gather evidence demonstrating how your duties and responsibilities align with a higher classification level, including referencing relevant case law or precedents.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc1824.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →