Legal Research
Cases
Australian Airlines Ltd v Moore

Australian Airlines Ltd v Moore

Case [1995] IRCA 175 28 April 1995

Industrial Dispute

Jurisdiction

Seniority

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Conciliation and arbitration - Australian Industrial Relations Commission - jurisdiction - industrial dispute - demand by pilots employed by subsidiary company on parent company seeking recruitment into the parent company according to an integrated seniority list - whether demand capable of creating industrial dispute - meaning of "about matters pertaining to the relationship between employers and employee"

WORDS AND PHRASES - "Industrial Dispute"

Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss4, 412(2), 412(3) and 415(2)(d)

The Queen v Coldham Ex Parte Fitzsimons (1977) 137 CLR 153
The Queen v Evatt Ex Parte The Master Builders' Association of New South Wales (1974) 132 CLR 150
The Queen v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd Ex Parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (1957) 97 CLR 71
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration Ex Parte Kirsh (1938) 60 CLR 507
Re Cram Ex Parte NSW Colliery Proprietors Association Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 117
Re Boyne Smelters Ltd Ex Parte Federation of Industrial Manufacturing and Engineering Employees of Australia (1993) 177 CLR 447
Re The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union of Australia Ex Parte The Shell Company of Australia Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 345
Re Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd Ex Parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (1987) 163 CLR 656

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES LIMITED V THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL FRANCIS MOORE AND OTHERS
No VI 806 of 1994

WILCOX CJ, NORTHROP AND GRAY JJ
MELBOURNE
28 APRIL 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA No VI 806 of 1994

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

B E T W E E N :

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
Applicant

A N D :

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL FRANCIS MOORE AND OTHERS
Respondents

COURT:     WILCOX CJ
          NORTHROP J
          GRAY J

PLACE: MELBOURNE

DATE: 28 APRIL 1995

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA No VI 806 of 1994

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

B E T W E E N :

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
Applicant

A N D :

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL FRANCIS MOORE AND OTHERS
Respondents

COURT:     WILCOX CJ
          NORTHROP J
          GRAY J

PLACE: MELBOURNE

DATE: 28 APRIL 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

Australian Airlines Limited ("Australian Airlines") is seeking orders preventing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") continuing to hear and determine an alleged industrial dispute under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 ("the Act") between identified professional air pilots employed by Eastern Australian Airlines Limited ("Eastern Airlines") concerning career progression rights of those pilots into Australian Airlines. Australian Airlines and Eastern Airlines are related corporations, the latter being a wholly owned subsidiary of the former. Each company employs pilots but Eastern Airlines is engaged in regional operations only. As a result pilots employed by that company do not have the career prospects available to pilots employed…

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.

Continue reading Australian Airlines Ltd v Moore

Details

AGLC: Australian Airlines Ltd v Moore [1995] IRCA 175
Case: [1995] IRCA 175
Decision Date: 28 April 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Australian Airlines Limited brought an action against Mr. Moore and other pilots employed by a subsidiary company, seeking a declaration that a demand made by the pilots was not capable of creating an industrial dispute. The dispute arose from the pilots' request to be recruited into the parent company under an integrated seniority list. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the pilots' demand could be considered an industrial dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). The court had to interpret the meaning of an industrial dispute under the relevant industrial relations legislation and determine if the pilots' demand could be characterised as such a dispute.

The court considered the nature of the pilots' demand and concluded that it did not constitute an industrial dispute as defined by the legislation. The pilots' request was for a change in their employment terms and conditions, specifically regarding recruitment into the parent company, but this did not involve any dispute between the pilots and their employer. Instead, it was a request for the employer to modify its employment practices. The court held that the pilots' demand did not involve any disagreement or contestation between the parties, and therefore, it did not fall within the scope of an industrial dispute.

In light of the court's findings, it was determined that the pilots' demand was not capable of creating an industrial dispute. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by Australian Airlines Limited and declared that the pilots' demand did not constitute an industrial dispute within the jurisdiction of the AIRC.

Orders