Cathay Pacific Airways Limited Summary

[2014] FWCA 1793

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited
(AG2014/3723)

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS GROUND STAFF WORKPLACE AGREEMENT 2014-2015

Airline operations
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 17 MARCH 2014

Cathay Pacific Airways Ground Staff Workplace Agreement 2014-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cathay Pacific Airways Ground Staff Workplace Agreement 2014-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application has been made by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 14 February 2014. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Lynn Schey made on behalf of the Employer and dated 14 February 2014, (the Declaration). The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 6 February 2014. Therefore the application was made within the 14 day lodgement time limit established by subsection 185 (3) (a) of the Act.

[3] The application for approval was listed for Hearing on 3 March 2014, at which time Ms L Schey appeared for the Employer and Ms K Lee, Ms E Oakley and Mr S Mokar appeared as representatives of employees to be covered by the Agreement. During the proceeding held on 3 March, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) identified various issues relating to the contents of certain terms contained in the Agreement which required clarification.

[4] Ms Schey, Ms Lee and Mr Mokar provided some important clarifications during the Hearing. The Employer was invited to consider some residual issues raised by the Commission and to respond in writing. The Commission has received correspondence dated 10 March 2014, from the Employer which included further material in support of the application together with Undertakings made by and duly signed by the Employer, and proposed to the Commission pursuant to s.190 of the Act (the Undertakings).

[5] Consequently I have further considered the application for approval having regard for the clarifications provided during the Hearing, the further material in support of the application, and the Undertakings.

[6] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Commission can approve of an enterprise agreement. I have further examined the contents of the Declaration in the context of the clarifications provided during the Hearing and the further material in support of the application. On the basis of this material I am satisfied that the procedural requirements of Part 2-4 of the Act have been met in this instance.

[7] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term at clause 6 and a consultation term at clause 9.

[8] I am prepared to accept the Undertakings. As provided by s.191 of the Act, the Undertakings are taken to be terms of the Agreement. I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[9] The Agreement as varied by the Undertakings is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 24 March 2014. In accordance with clause 5 of the Agreement the nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Undertakings

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited recently faced a legal dispute in the Fair Work Commission concerning the interpretation of the Cathay Pacific Airways Ground Staff Workplace Agreement for the years 2014-2015. The disagreement arose between the airline and its employees represented by the Transport Workers Union, focusing on the application of certain clauses within the agreement pertaining to rostering, leave entitlements, and procedural fairness. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with resolving workplace disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of specific terms within the collective agreement. The Transport Workers Union argued that certain rostering practices and leave entitlements had been misapplied by Cathay Pacific, resulting in employees being unfairly treated. Additionally, the union claimed that the airline had not followed proper procedural steps when implementing changes to rosters, which infringed upon the employees' rights under the agreement. The airline, on the other hand, contended that their actions were consistent with the terms of the agreement and that any procedural shortcomings were minor and did not significantly impact the employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission meticulously examined the language of the Cathay Pacific Airways Ground Staff Workplace Agreement. The Commission found that while some of the airline's practices were indeed inconsistent with the agreement, others were permissible. Regarding the procedural fairness claims, the Commission determined that while there were some procedural lapses, these did not amount to a significant breach of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the airline on most points but mandated that Cathay Pacific take specific corrective actions to ensure compliance with the agreement going forward. The final orders included a requirement for Cathay Pacific to review and adjust its rostering practices, provide clear communication to its employees, and implement a formalised procedure for addressing future disputes in a manner consistent with the agreement.

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established