Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) brought proceedings against Qantas Airways Limited concerning Qantas's decision to implement a "Maintenance on Demand" program, which would result in approximately 30 redundant Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) positions. The dispute arose from the ALAEA's assertion that Qantas had breached the Qantas LAME Enterprise Agreement 2012 (WD 2012) and the company's Change Management Procedure by announcing redundancies and proceeding with implementation before adequate consultation with employee representatives.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation and scope of the job security clause within the Qantas LAME WD 2012. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether Qantas's actions in announcing and proceeding with the "Maintenance on Demand" program, which led to redundancies, constituted a breach of its obligations under the agreement, particularly concerning the extent of consultation required and the commitment to job security.

The court found that there was no mutual understanding between Qantas and the ALAEA regarding the precise meaning and extent of the job security clause. It noted that Qantas was aware of the restrictive interpretation sought by the ALAEA but was potentially reassured by the union's withdrawal of a demand for a clause specifying LAME functions. The court relied on the reasoning in *AFMEPKIU v Qantas Airways Limited* [2001] FCA 547, which dealt with an identically worded job security clause. In that case, the court concluded that the clause was ambiguous, capable of bearing multiple interpretations, and that extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity to establish the parties' objective intentions. Consequently, the ALAEA bore the onus of proving its construction of the clause, which it failed to do.