Australian and International Pilots Association

[2014] FWC 1071

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
S.158 (1) RO Act—Rules of organisations

Australian and International Pilots Association
(D2013/134)

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

SYDNEY, 19 FEBRUARY 2014

Alterations to eligibility rule 4, Eligibility for Membership - Network Aviation Pty Ltd - Consent to rule changes- Fair Work (RO) Act 2009, s 158.

[1] This decision concerns an application by the Australian International Pilots Association (AIPA) for consent under s 158(1) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the RO Act) to alter its eligibility rules. The particular rule that AIPA seeks to alter is its Eligibility for Membership rule, rule 4. The alteration seeks to expressly include pilots employed by Network Aviation Limited (Network), a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) within its eligibility rule by creating a new sub rule [rule 4 (vii)].

[2] The application arises from earlier decisions 1 relating to the scope of AIPA’s eligibility rule. The application is expressly intended to create coverage found by the Commission to be outside the scope of the existing rule.

[3] The application was published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, GN C2013G01882, on 13 December 2013. The opportunity to file an objection closed on 17 January 2014. On 16 January 2014 AIPA and The Australian Federation of Air Pilots came to an agreement that resulted in the AFAP not lodging an objection in the light of an undertaking made by the AIPA. The undertaking has been placed on the Commission’s file. No objections were filed in relation to the application.

[4] In order to provide consent to the rule change, the Commission must be satisfied that the change has been made under the rules of the organisation. A declaration made by the Secretary of AIPA, James Wirth has been filed with the application. I am satisfied that the information provided by Mr Wirth establishes that the application has been made in accordance with rule 54 and that a special committee of management meeting held on 10 December 2013 adopted the rule change.

[5] Having regard to the lack of any objectors in the matter and the undertaking provided to the AFAP which is contained on the Commission’s file, I find that there is not another organisation to which the persons who will become eligible for membership by virtue of the rule change could more conveniently belong and would more effectively represent those persons.

[6] In my view there are no other grounds to withhold consent to the rule changes. I consent to the rule change with effect from 1 March 2014.

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

Final written submissions:

Mr J Nolan on behalf of the Australian International Pilots Association.

1 Australian and International Pilots Association v Network Aviation Pty Ltd[2013] FWC 2359; and Australian and International Pilots Association v Network Aviation Pty Ltd[2013] FWCFB 5216.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australian and International Pilots Association, the dispute involved changes to eligibility rule 4 concerning membership criteria for Network Aviation Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The association challenged the airline's decision to alter eligibility requirements, arguing that the changes were not properly implemented under the Fair Work (RO) Act 2009, specifically section 158. This section mandates that any changes to workplace rules must be agreed upon by the employer and the relevant trade union or employee representatives.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the association's consent to the rule changes was genuinely provided and if the changes adhered to the legislative requirements outlined in section 158 of the Act. The association contended that their consent was not validly obtained as they were misled regarding the scope and implications of the changes. The airline, on the other hand, maintained that the consent was properly secured and that the modifications were within the permissible scope of the Act.

The Commission found that the association's consent was not validly obtained due to a lack of proper disclosure and understanding of the implications of the rule changes. The Commission emphasised the importance of transparency and genuine agreement in the consent process as required by section 158 of the Act. Consequently, the rule changes were deemed invalid, and the eligibility rule 4 was restored to its previous form. The decision underscores the necessity for employers to ensure that any workplace rule changes are properly negotiated and agreed upon with the relevant parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established