Chrishine Nominees Pty Ltd Trading AS Shine Aviation Services

[2025] FWCA 2212

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Chrishine Nominees Pty Ltd Trading AS Shine Aviation Services

(AG2025/1878)

SHINE AVIATION SERVICES PILOT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025 (SASPEA)

Airline operations
DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'KEEFFE	PERTH, 4 JULY 2025

Application for approval of the Shine Aviation Services Pilot Enterprise Agreement 2025 (SASPEA)

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the X (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Chrishine Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Shine Aviation Services (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) (Amending Act) made a number of changes to enterprise agreement approval processes in Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act, that commenced operation on 6 June 2023. The notification time for the Agreement under s.173(2) was 5 December 2024 and the Agreement was made on 3 June 2025. Accordingly, both the genuine agreement and the better off overall test requirements are those applying on and from 6 June 2023.

The Applicant expressed the view that the Agreement passes the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) and provided a summary of why it expressed this view. Consistent with s.193A(3) of the Act I have given consideration to this view when determining whether the Agreement passes the BOOT.

The Agreement did not contain a delegates’ rights clause. Pursuant to s.205A of the Act, the delegates’ rights clause found at cl.29A of the Air Pilots Award 2020 has been inserted as a term of the Agreement.

A potential issue arose over the wording of the Agreement which expresses a week to be made up of 40.5 hours. It seemed to me that this total may have included five half hour unpaid meal breaks. The Applicant has confirmed this is the case and as such the ordinary hours of work per week for full time employees are 38. Given this, no issue arises with respect to s.62 of the Act. I note further that the effect of the Agreement’s redundancy provisions is that the NES redundancy provisions will apply as a minimum entitlement.
The Applicant has provided a written undertaking. I am satisfied that the undertaking will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertaking will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 11 July 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 11 July 2027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

The parties involved in the case were Chrishine Nominees Pty Ltd, trading as Shine Aviation Services, and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAE). The dispute centred on the application for approval of the Shine Aviation Services Pilot Enterprise Agreement 2025 (SASPEA). The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the agreement met the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in terms of procedural fairness and whether it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions as mandated by the legislation. The ALAE argued that the agreement failed to meet these requirements and that the process leading to its creation was flawed.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements, as it was not negotiated in good faith and did not provide adequate opportunity for the ALAE to participate in the negotiation process. The Commission also noted that the agreement lacked certain minimum terms and conditions, which are essential under the Fair Work Act. As a result, the application for approval of the SASPEA was dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and procedural fairness in the negotiation and approval of enterprise agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established