Captain Murray William Butt v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2025] FWC 2735

[2025] FWC 2735

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Captain Murray William Butt
v

Qantas Airways Ltd

(C2025/5)

COMMISSIONER P RYAN

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

Dispute about a matter arising under the enterprise agreement – Commission’s powers to deal with a dispute – Powers of the Commission to inform itself – Interlocutory application to intervene by employee organisation covered by the Agreement – Whether Commission’s powers to grant a party leave to intervene are limited by dispute settlement procedure – Proper construction of dispute settlement procedure.

Introduction

This decision concerns an application by the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) to ‘intervene’ in a dispute between Captain Murray William Butt (Captain Butt) and Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas).

The dispute relates to a decision by Qantas to change the car parking arrangements for employees based at its Mascot Campus, which is located adjacent to Sydney Airport. Captain Butt contends that Qantas has removed long-term car parking arrangements that were exclusively available to Qantas Mainline Captains for duty and leisure travel as part of a prior bargaining/dispute settlement. In response to that, Captain Butt initiated a grievance under clause 48 of the Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (Agreement).

Qantas contends that grievances about car parking arrangements do not fall within the scope of clause 48 of the Agreement. This led to a dispute between Captain Butt and Qantas about whether car parking arrangements fall within the scope of the grievance procedures set out in clause 48.

Captain Butt and Qantas were unable to resolve the dispute, and Captain Butt made an application pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) for the Commission to resolve the dispute.

The matter was unable to be resolved by conciliation and was listed for hearing on 18 March 2025.

Prior to the hearing, the AIPA made an application under ss.589 and 590 of the FW Act seeking an order that it be granted “leave to intervene” in the dispute (Interlocutory Application). Captain Butt does not support or oppose the Interlocutory Application. Qantas opposes the Interlocutory Application and submits that it should be dismissed for two reasons:

(i)The parties to the Agreement have limited the Commission’s powers and have not conferred upon the Commission any power or discretion to permit a third party to “intervene” in a dispute; and
(ii)If the Commission does have such a discretion, the Commission should not exercise that discretion.

The Interlocutory Application was heard on 31 March 2025. Both the AIPA and Qantas were granted permission to be represented by lawyers as I was satisfied that the precondition in s.596(2)(a) of the FW Act had been met, and that it was appropriate to exercise my discretion to grant permission. The AIPA was represented by Mr D. Taylor, solicitor. Qantas was represented by Mr D Ward of counsel. Captain Butt was represented by Mr D Stephens, Senior Industrial Officer of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Captain Murray William Butt v Qantas Airways Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2735
Decision Date: 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Captain Murray William Butt v Qantas Airways Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) could intervene in a dispute between Captain Butt and Qantas regarding car parking arrangements at the Mascot Campus. The crux of the legal issue was whether the dispute settlement procedure in the Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2020 limited the Commission's powers to permit third-party intervention. The AIPA sought to intervene, citing its historical involvement in the negotiation of the Agreement and its representation of approximately 90% of the employees covered by the Agreement. Qantas opposed the intervention, arguing that the Commission's powers were limited by the dispute settlement procedure and that intervention would expand and inflame the dispute.

The Commissioner found that clause 47.2.5 of the Agreement, which outlines the actions the Commission can take, did not limit the Commission's powers to those specified. Instead, the use of the word "can" indicated a discretionary authority rather than an exhaustive list of permissible actions. Furthermore, the Commissioner concluded that the AIPA's involvement would not expand or inflame the dispute, given the significant impact the arbitration's outcome would have on the employees covered by the Agreement. The Commissioner exercised discretion to allow the AIPA to intervene, balancing the procedural fairness of allowing the AIPA to be heard against the delay caused by the Interlocutory Application. The decision permits the AIPA to participate in the arbitration of the dispute, ensuring that the parties most affected by the outcome have a voice in the proceedings.

Orders