Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Careflight (Qld) Limited

[2013] FWC 2274

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Careflight (QLD) Limited
(B2013/77)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 12 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Careflight (QLD) Limited.

[1] The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of Careflight (QLD) Limited (Employer).

[2] The matter was listed for a hearing today. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties agreed that I conduct a conference.

[3] At the conclusion of the conference the Employer did not oppose the application nor the terms of the proposed order as amended during the conference.

[4] At no stage has the employer contested that the AFAP has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

[5] As the parties reached agreement on the terms of the proposed order during the conference, I decided to determine the matter on the papers without the need to resume the hearing.

[6] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made.

[7] The order [PR535667], based on the proposed order as amended during the conference, will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr S Littlewood on behalf of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

Mr J Murdoch SC and Mr A Venardos on behalf of Careflight (QLD) Ltd.

Hearing details:

2013.

Melbourne, Brisbane;

April, 12.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots brought proceedings against Careflight (Qld) Limited, seeking approval for a protected action ballot concerning its employees. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the proposed industrial action was lawful and appropriately notified.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed industrial action was protected action as defined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and if the required notifications and information were properly provided to the employer. Specifically, the Commission had to assess if the union had complied with the procedural requirements for organising and conducting a protected action ballot.

The Commission found that the proposed industrial action was indeed protected action under the Act. However, the union had not provided the employer with all the required information in the notices. The notices did not include details such as the specific dates and times of the proposed action, and the duration of the action. These omissions were deemed significant, as they deprived the employer of the necessary information to assess the potential impact of the industrial action and to engage in meaningful discussions with the union.

Consequently, the Commission did not approve the proposed protected action ballot. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to the statutory requirements when organising protected industrial action, emphasising the necessity for unions to provide comprehensive and accurate information to employers to facilitate effective communication and resolution of disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established