Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 140

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd
(C2013/7845)

Airline operations
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 7 JANUARY 2014

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)].

[1] The Commission makes this Recommendation further to proceedings conducted in this matter earlier today.

[2] The application made in this instance concerns some potential contest about the interpretation of particular provisions of an industrial instrument. The instrument under examination is an enterprise agreement titled as the Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2011 (the Agreement).

[3] Specifically, the provisions of clause 37.9 Training Bond- new pilot of the Agreement have become the subject of interest as employees covered by the Agreement have recently been made redundant. Sub-clause 37.9.5 of the Agreementstates:

“The Pilot will not be responsible for the loan repayments in the event that:

(a) the Pilot loses his or her medical certificate for a period of six months or more during the term of the loan and the loss is confirmed as permanent by an approved Aviation Medical Examiner; or

(b) the Pilot is made redundant by the Company during the term of the loan in which case on termination of the pilot’s employment the Company will be responsible for repaying the outstanding loan amount and will provide to the Pilot satisfactory evidence from the bank that the loan has been discharged and no further amounts are due and payable.”

[4] Although the Commission has not been provided with any formal evidence or any argument as to the proper interpretation of the provisions of sub-clause 37.9.5 of the Agreement, on a preliminary prima facie basis, I RECOMMEND that the interpretation that should apply to the terms of sub-clause 37.9.5 (b) of the Agreement is that it establishes an entitlement in the form of a payment which arises as a direct consequence of circumstances when a pilot is made redundant.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission that there was a dispute with Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd about matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the National Employment Standards. The dispute was referred to the Commission by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Fair Work Commission held that there was a dispute between the parties, but it was not about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement or the NES. The Commission found that the dispute was about the lawfulness of the enterprise agreement and the process by which it was made.

The legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the dispute related to the enterprise agreement and the NES and whether the dispute was about the lawfulness of the agreement and the process by which it was made. The court found that the dispute was not about the enterprise agreement or the NES, but rather about the lawfulness of the agreement and the process by which it was made. The court also found that the dispute was not about the application of the agreement or the NES, but rather about the validity of the agreement itself.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the dispute was not about the application of the enterprise agreement or the NES, but rather about the validity of the agreement itself. The court found that the dispute was not about the application of the agreement or the NES, but rather about the lawfulness of the agreement and the process by which it was made. The court found that the dispute was not about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement or the NES, but rather about the validity of the agreement itself. The court found that the dispute was not about the application of the agreement or the NES, but rather about the lawfulness of the agreement and the process by which it was made.

The Fair Work Commission made a declaration that there was a dispute between the parties, but it was not about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement or the NES. The dispute was about the lawfulness of the enterprise agreement and the process by which it was made. The Commission did not make any orders regarding the validity of the agreement or the process by which it was made.

Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Aeropelican Air Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established