Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Tigerair Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWC 250


[2014] FWC 250

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.459—Protected action

Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Tigerair Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/422)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2014

Application to extend the 30 day period in relation to B2013/1418.

[1] On 7 January 2014 the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) made an application (pursuant to s.459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act)) to extend the 30 day period in which industrial action is authorised to occur. It has not previously sought to extend the period.

[2] The Protected Action Ballot Order was made on 15 November 2013 [PR544592]. The ballot was declared by the Australian Electoral Commission on 11 December 2013. Therefore, the 30-day period (starting from the date of the declaration of the ballot) expires on 9 January 2014.

[3] Section 459 of the Act provides as follows:

459 Circumstances in which industrial action is authorised by protected action ballot

(1) Industrial action by employees is authorised by a protected action ballot if:

    (a) the action was the subject of the ballot; and

    (b) at least 50% of the employees on the roll of voters for the ballot voted in the ballot; and

    (c) more than 50% of the valid votes were votes approving the action; and

    (d) the action commences:

(i) during the 30-day period starting on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot; or

(ii) if FWA has extended that period under subsection (3)—during the extended period.

(2) If:

    (a) the nature of the proposed industrial action specified in the question or questions put to the employees in the protected action ballot included periods of industrial action of a particular duration; and

    (b) the question or questions did not specify that consecutive periods of that industrial action may be organised or engaged in;

      then only the first period in a series of consecutive periods of that industrial action is the subject of the ballot for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

(3) FWA may extend the 30-day period referred to in subparagraph (1)(d)(i) by up to 30 days if:

(a) an applicant for the protected action ballot order applies to FWA for the period to be extended; and

(b) the period has not previously been extended.

[4] On 8 January 2014, the Commission wrote to Tigerair Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent) to ascertain if there was any objection to the application. On 9 January 2014 the Respondent advised the Commission in writing that it did not oppose the application for extension made by AFAP.

[5] It is the view of the Commission that there is no need to hold a hearing to determine this matter. The requirements in s.459(3)(a) and (b) have been met.

[6] The application for an extension of the 30-day period is granted.

[7] An order to this effect shall be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR546668>

Details
AGLC
Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Tigerair Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 250
Case
[2014] FWC 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots sought an extension of the 30-day period within which to file an application for review of an award made by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose out of an industrial dispute between the Federation, representing the pilots, and Tigerair Australia Pty Ltd. The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission heard the matter. The central legal issue was whether the Court should extend the statutory 30-day period within which an application for review of an award must be filed. The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances in which an extension may be granted.

The Court examined the statutory framework, including section 339(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that an application for review must be filed within 30 days of the making of the award. The Court also considered the principles set out in cases such as Re Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation; Ex parte Tasmanian Employers' Association. The Court concluded that the statutory period for filing an application for review is not jurisdictional and may be extended if the applicant can demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The Court found that the Federation had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application and that the application for an extension should be granted.

The Court granted the application for an extension of time, allowing the Federation to file an application for review of the award outside the 30-day period. The Court noted that the decision was made on the specific facts and circumstances of the case and did not set a precedent for future applications. The Court emphasised that each application for an extension of time will be considered on its merits and that the decision to grant an extension will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.