DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2015/7673)

THE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE SERVICES AUSTRALIA - ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT.

Airline operations
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON	BRISBANE, 13 MAY 2016

Application for approval of the Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia - Enterprise Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia - Enterprise Agreement (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia Pty Ltd. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] Statutory Declarations from The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) and The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) were submitted objecting to the agreement being approved for various reasons.

[3] The matter was listed for Directions 9 February 2016 when directions were set requiring the Applicant to file any further material in support of their application in the Fair Work Commission, and serve a copy on the AWU and the ALAEA, by no later than 29 February 2016, and the AWU and ALAEA were to advise by 7 March 2016 whether they wish to continue their objection to the application and that the matter would be listed for hearing if objections were not withdrawn.

[4] Further submissions and reply submissions were filed by the respective parties and also a number of adjournment requests have been made and granted. The matter was heard on 22 April 2016. I will deal with each of the objections in turn.

Was the Agreement Genuinely Agreed?

[5] The Unions raised concerns regarding the eligibility of certain casual employees to vote in the ballot for the Agreement.

[6] The context in the particular facts of this case are that the Form F17 Statutory Declaration of the employer advised that 124 employees would be covered by the agreement, 103 cast a valid vote and 53 voted to approve the agreement, and 50 voted against.

[7] The Applicant filed with its submissions a Statutory Declaration from Kim Chan, a Consultant of Livingstones stating he was charged with conducting the electronic ballot using “Survey Monkey”. He attached to his statement a graphical representation of the electronic ballot results as exported from “Survey Monkey”, and he also attached a declaration of the ballot results and set out the steps taken in conducting the ballot.

[8] A further Statutory Declaration was provided from Tiffany Png, the Applicants Payroll Officer. She said in her Statutory Declaration that ASMA has a number of casuals who are available to work at various times depending on their availability, AMSA’s requirements, and importantly their respective aircraft licensing qualifications.

[9] Ms Png said that due to the licensing requirements and availability of casual employees some may work more regularly than others again due to licence coverage and the need to replace permanent employees during absences on annual leave or personal leave.

[10] Ms Png said ASMA follows a regular practice of removing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FWCA 62
Decision Date: 13 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision, the Fair Work Commission considered an application for the approval of the Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia - Enterprise Agreement. The applicant, Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia Pty Ltd, sought the Commission's approval of the agreement which was entered into in the context of its operations in the aviation maintenance sector. The nature of the dispute centred on the terms and conditions of employment for the employees of the respondent, Aircraft Maintenance Services Australia Pty Ltd, as well as the broader implications of the agreement on industrial relations within the industry.

The legal issues that the Commission was required to address included whether the agreement provided for the fair and equitable resolution of employment matters, whether it complied with the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining. Additionally, the Commission needed to ensure that the agreement did not disadvantage any party and that it was consistent with the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act.

In delivering its decision, the Commission carefully examined the provisions of the agreement, taking into account the submissions of both parties and the broader context of the aviation maintenance industry. The Commission found that the agreement met the statutory requirements and was consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Commission also determined that the agreement did not disadvantage any party and that it was fair and equitable. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, thereby resolving the dispute in favour of the applicant.

No further orders were made by the Commission beyond the approval of the agreement. This decision provides clarity for the parties involved and sets a precedent for similar agreements within the aviation maintenance sector. The Commission's approval of the agreement ensures that the terms and conditions of employment are governed by a legally binding and fair document, thereby promoting stability and predictability in industrial relations.

Orders